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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the response is large, delisted coins are retained, funding is an hourly fraction, and open interest is in coin units — all of which prevent misinterpretation. It stops short of noting response size limits or pagination behavior, which is the only meaningful gap for a large raw payload.

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?

Almost every clause carries information: shape, indexing rule, delisted inclusion, unit conventions, and the routing alternative. The opening 'metaAndAssetCtxs (large)' is compressed upstream jargon, but it is front-loaded and functional rather than wasteful.

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 correctly takes on the burden of explaining the return shape (two parallel arrays joined by index) and the units of the key numeric fields. What remains unspecified — the individual field names inside each array element and any payload size ceiling — is a modest gap for a large raw dump 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It does not waste space restating parameter details that do not exist.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Raw Hyperliquid metaAndAssetCtxs') and describes the payload shape: a universe array plus a parallel per-asset context array joined by index, with delisted coins included. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'discover' tool for perp screening, so an agent can pick correctly without reading either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('only for raw funding') and an explicit alternative ('screen perps with discover kind=perp'). Nothing is left to inference about the intended path.

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