List the Hyperliquid addresses you follow (reads your account)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond by disclosing that following addresses is gated to the Terminal plan tiers and that the response includes a plan's address limit — real context an agent can use to explain failures.

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 invocation condition, no filler. The trailing plan-gating sentence is a bit dense but earns its place by explaining access constraints.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so (label, last-seen positions, address limit). Complete enough for a 0-param read tool, though it omits any pagination or empty-list behavior.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing only what is returned. Nothing misleading is added about inputs.

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 ('which Hyperliquid addresses you follow') and even previews the return payload (label, last-seen positions, plan limit). It is clearly distinct from mutating siblings like add_tracked_address/remove_tracked_address, though it never names them explicitly.

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 trigger: 'Call this when the user asks which Hyperliquid addresses they follow, or what those addresses hold right now.' No when-not or named-alternative guidance (e.g., vs get_hl_positions), so it falls short of a 5.

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