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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description exposes a subtle and important behavior: chains with 'notServed': true will return empty data and zero addresses, and the agent is explicitly warned not to send transactions to those gateway addresses. This prevents misinterpretation of empty results and provides actionable safety guidance.

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 compact yet information-dense. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence explains the crucial 'notServed' behavior and its transaction-safety implication. No sentence is wasted.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to interpret the notServed flag, and what action to avoid. There are no major gaps that would prevent an agent from calling this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'v3, v4, or both,' which aligns with the version enum, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No extra parameter guidance is necessary because the single optional parameter is fully self-documenting.

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' and immediately scopes it by version ('v3, v4, or both'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_markets or get_hubs, which concern different resources.

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 first sentence tells the agent exactly when to use the tool: when the supported chains for Aave are needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the resource scope is clear enough that an agent is unlikely to confuse it with the related get_hubs or get_markets tools.

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