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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing the upstream source ('trigger-aware upstream, so stop orders never masquerade as plain limits'), a ~2s shared-cache staleness bound on HIP-3 rows, partial-failure signaling via hip3.failed_dexes and meta.quality='partial', and the api:read auth requirement. That is exactly the kind of failure-mode and freshness context structured fields cannot carry.

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 the core statement, then layered with progressively finer detail (ordering, HIP-3, failure flags, staleness, auth). It is dense and sentence-long but nearly every clause carries operational meaning; a small deduction because the return-shape details are packed into a single run-on block rather than separated from the call rationale.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry return-shape and failure semantics, and it does: field names (is_trigger, trigger_price, trigger_condition, dex, hip3.failed_dexes, meta.quality), ordering, partial-result conditions, and the empty-list interpretation. An agent can both decide to call it and correctly interpret a degraded response.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs disambiguation and the description does not waste space restating emptiness. It correctly implies the implicit scope (the API key's user) rather than a caller-supplied wallet filter.

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+resource with precision: 'YOUR open (resting) Hyperliquid orders (the API key's user)', scoped to both the main wallet and the agent deposit wallet. It also enumerates what counts as an order (limit, trigger/TP-SL, perp, spot, HIP-3 builder-DEX), which separates it cleanly from sibling reads like get_positions, get_fills, and get_orderbook.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — the reader infers 'call this to see your resting orders'. The only guidance-like statements are about interpreting results ('empty list genuinely means no resting orders') and the api:read prerequisite. No sibling alternative is named (e.g., get_fills for history, get_positions for exposures), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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