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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantive behavioral details: the returned condition fields 'quorumMet' and 'differentialMet', the fact that vote tallies and quorum are denominated in AAVE and directly comparable, and the IPFS omission behavior controlled by includeDescription. This prepares the agent to interpret the result and understand returned data semantics.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: the first preempts a common misuse, the second states the tool's purpose and return content, the third explains pass conditions, and the fourth clarifies IPFS handling. The description is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description compensates by listing the key response elements, explaining units and pass conditions, and flagging the optional heavy payload. Combined with the well-described parameters and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 the parameter descriptions are already rich, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by warning not to pass a 'version' argument at all, which prevents a plausible parameter hallucination, and by explaining the includeDescription behavior in context. It mostly complements rather than expands the schema, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 clearly identifies the resource and verb: 'Full detail for one Aave DAO governance proposal' and enumerates what is included (state, author, vote tallies, quorum, timings, transaction hashes). It also disambiguates from market-specific governance by explicitly stating Governance V3 is unrelated to Aave v3/v4 markets.

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 gives useful exclusion guidance: it takes no 'version' argument because DAO governance is not per-market, which prevents a common misuse. It implies this tool is for retrieving one proposal's full detail, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as search_governance_proposals or get_proposal_votes, so it stops short of the strongest routing guidance.

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