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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: notServed chains return empty market, position, and rewards reads, gateway addresses read 0x0, and transactions to such gateways should not be sent. This materially changes how an agent should interpret and act on results. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, safety-relevant behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains both the returned flag semantics and the practical consequences for downstream reads/transactions. This is enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret its results without additional documentation.

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 100%, with the version parameter already documented as an enum of v3/v4/all and default all. The description only restates this as 'on v3, v4, or both,' adding no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List chains Aave supports, on v3, v4, or both.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling get_* tools by its unique chain-list resource and version scope. The title reinforces the intent without ambiguity.

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 description implies when to use it—when an agent needs the list of chains and their served/not-served status—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The rich flag explanation gives clear context for interpreting results, but no exclusionary guidance relative to sibling tools is provided.

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