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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses that the tool sends to Hyperliquid, requires an EIP-712 signature, can submit either an order or a cancel, and enumerates the return payload (status, fill price, fees, balance, position) — meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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 core action and no filler. The return-value summary in the second sentence is compact and earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description helpfully names the returned fields, which is the key thing an agent needs. Combined with annotation coverage of the write nature, it is close to complete; the only soft spot is the undefined prepared_id and the unstated prepare_order prerequisite.

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 67%: 'signature' and 'idempotency_key' are described in the schema, while 'prepared_id' is undocumented there. The description only loosely implies prepared_id references a 'prepared order' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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 ('Send a prepared order or cancel') plus the target venue (Hyperliquid) and the signing requirement (EIP-712 signature of typed_data). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only siblings, though it only implicitly signals its pairing with prepare_order rather than naming it.

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 phrase 'prepared order' implies this is used after prepare_order, which is the natural usage context, but the description never explicitly states 'call this after prepare_order' nor names any alternative or exclusion. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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