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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with the returned fields (analysis time, history length, losses, missing results) and an explicit disclaimer that no suitability or follower-return claims are made, which sets expectations about result interpretation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and input constraint, followed by the return contents and scope caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description must characterize the response, and it does so at a summary level. Combined with the read-only annotations and a single well-constrained parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; per-wallet output shape remains only broadly sketched.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden: it tells the agent the input is two to five wallets and that they must be distinct, a constraint the schema's minItems/maxItems does not enforce. It also clarifies these are public wallets, which the bare 0x-hex pattern does not convey.

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 (compare) and resource (two to five distinct public wallets), and the cardinality range implicitly separates it from the single-wallet sibling analyze_hyperliquid_wallet. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires an inference.

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?

"Use one call" hints at batching several wallets together rather than calling analyze_hyperliquid_wallet repeatedly, but there is no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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