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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful context beyond it: 'quorumMet' and 'differentialMet' as the two pass conditions, vote tallies and quorum both being in AAVE so they compare directly, and the IPFS write-up being omitted unless includeDescription is true. It does not disclose failure behavior for nonexistent proposal IDs or live IPFS fetch characteristics, but for a read-only getter these are minor.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the most likely error source (the version confusion) before the purpose statement. Nearly every sentence earns its place, but the final IPFS sentence substantially repeats what the includeDescription schema description already states, so it is not perfectly lean.

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 return-value burden and meets it: content fields, the two pass conditions, unit consistency, and the optional-description default are all stated. For a low-complexity read-only fetch with two fully documented parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the results is missing.

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% and both parameters are already well documented (decimal-string format with an example and provenance for proposalId; default and size caveat for includeDescription), so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by warning there is no version parameter, preventing an agent from expecting market-scoped parameters, though it adds no new syntax or format details.

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 and resource — 'Full detail for one Aave DAO governance proposal' — and enumerates returned fields (state, author, vote tallies, quorum, timings, lifecycle tx hashes). The 'Takes no version argument' note distinguishes it from per-market siblings, and the single-item scope distinguishes it from search_governance_proposals, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear context: the version-argument warning prevents a realistic misuse (treating DAO governance as per-market), and the schema ties proposalId provenance to search_governance_proposals, implying the search-then-detail workflow. However, it never names alternatives like get_proposal_votes or get_proposal_payloads, so routing among the governance family is largely left to inference.

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