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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the venue default and warns that an empty native result is not proof of absence across venues — a real interpretation caveat. It says nothing, however, about pagination, latency, or what the position payload contains.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then parameter behavior, then the interpretation caveat. No filler, though the closing sentence is tightly packed and slightly cryptic without examples.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, most of what an agent needs is present. The notable gap is the return shape: with no output schema, the description never indicates what a 'position' entry looks like or how many are returned, which matters for an inspection tool.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: 'asset' names a market like Nvidia that the service resolves to its venue, and the venue parameter defaults to native only. That resolution behavior is not derivable from the schema text.

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 resource and scope: 'positions of one public Hyperliquid wallet on one perpetual venue.' The singular-wallet, single-venue framing implicitly separates it from the plural sibling get_hyperliquid_wallets_positions, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Opens with 'Use for...' and supplies real operational context: the venue defaults to native only, and an empty native result should not be read as absence across all venues. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling (e.g., the multi-wallet or analyze variants) or any exclusion.

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