Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does: declares 'Read-only: places no order', discloses the exact cost model including what the wallet scan's share costs even when unused, states that failures or unplannable cases return an error with no charge, and surfaces the Hyperliquid US-persons restriction. That is a rich behavioral disclosure beyond anything structured.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and pipeline, then cost and error terms — good ordering. It is somewhat dense, and the itemized cost breakdown ($0.005 + $0.001 + $0.001 + $0.01) repeats the total '$0.02 USDC per call', which is mild redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this covers the gaps: what the plan returns (funding, liquidation price and distance, margin, fees), conditional error behavior, pricing, and legal restriction. An agent has everything needed to decide and call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so defaults, ranges and default leverage cap are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the contextual link that betaOverride matters when the token has no perp and that walletAddress substitutes for amount — useful framing but marginal beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Plan a Hyperliquid short') and resource (hedge for a Solana token position) and enumerates the internal pipeline (pair_data, wallet_balance, token_security, funding_rate_arbitrage) plus the fallback to SOL-with-beta. An agent can distinguish this composite planner from the individual scan siblings without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Makes clear this bundles the scans rather than requiring separate calls, and specifies the amount-or-walletAddress choice plus the no-perp fallback path. It stops short of naming explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer calling funding_rate_arbitrage directly instead of paying for the bundle).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.