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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying this is v4-only, hub-level accounting, and that it returns aggregate supplied/borrowed totals, rates, and utilisation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences. The v4-only constraint is placed first, followed by what the tool returns, how to obtain the required parameter, and when to choose an alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, read-only annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to get the required input, and when to avoid it in favor of get_markets. Nothing essential 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 already documents both parameters fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying where to get hubId (from get_hubs or hubAddress on get_reserve_details) and reinforcing that the version parameter is optional because the tool only exists on v4.

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 clear verb and resource: get the assets held by one Aave v4 hub, including supplied and borrowed totals, rates, and utilisation. It also distinguishes itself from get_markets by explicitly marking this as hub-level accounting.

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 explicit usage guidance: use get_hubs (or get_reserve_details) to obtain the hubId, and use get_markets instead when the agent needs per-spoke user-level supply/borrow data. This makes the appropriate context and alternative crystal clear.

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