List the Hyperliquid addresses you follow (reads your account)

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by explaining that the response includes every followed address, its label, last-seen positions, and the plan's address limit.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the call condition and followed by the return contents. No sentence is wasted, and the plan-limit context is brief but relevant.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it says when to call it and what the returned data contains. The plan address limit and account context are also surfaced, leaving little an agent would need to infer.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any input-schema gaps.

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 description states a specific verb/resource: listing the Hyperliquid addresses the user follows. It also clarifies that the result includes what those addresses hold, making the purpose distinct from related tools like get_hl_positions or list_watchlists.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: call this when the user asks which Hyperliquid addresses they follow or what those addresses hold. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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