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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotation context: it returns 'alternatives, ambiguity and coverage' (signaling graceful handling of non-unique or missing symbols) and the domain caveat 'A perpetual contract is not the underlying stock', which prevents an equity/perp conflation error.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and followed by return content and one caveat; nothing is padded or redundant. Slightly telegraphic ('ambiguity and coverage' without elaboration) keeps it just under the top mark.

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 one-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what kinds of input it accepts, the shape of the result, and the key semantic pitfall. It lacks failure-mode detail (what happens on no match) and cross-tool routing, but is adequate for correct invocation.

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 must carry the input burden, and it partly does: the examples reveal that 'asset' accepts a company name (Nvidia), a ticker (NVDA), a coin (ETH/Bitcoin), or a raw venue symbol. It does not state length limits, case sensitivity, or single-asset-only constraints, so the compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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?

The specific verb 'resolve' plus the named resource ('Hyperliquid metadata') and concrete input examples (Nvidia, NVDA, Bitcoin, ETH, venue symbol) make the tool's job immediately clear; it is the only resolver among 21 sibling fetch/analysis tools. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with look-alike siblings such as get_hyperliquid_market_state.

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?

The opening 'Use to resolve ...' supplies an implicit trigger: you have an identifier that needs mapping to a Hyperliquid market. However, with ~20 Hyperliquid-related siblings, there is no when-not-to-use, no named alternative, and no prerequisite guidance, so the routing burden remains on the agent.

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