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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the output includes each payload's execution state, timelock delay, grace period, and contract calls, and cross-chain execution can be inconsistent (e.g., executed on mainnet but queued elsewhere). This helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 composed of three sentences, each earning its place: one dispels a common parameter misconception, one defines the tool's core resource, and one gives the primary use case. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and contains no 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining what the tool returns. It adequately covers the return contents (execution state, timelock, grace period, contract calls) and the cross-chain interpretation. The information given is sufficient for an agent to select and call this tool appropriately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the proposalId parameter is already well documented. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly stating the tool takes no 'version' argument, preventing an agent from mistakenly supplying one. It also reinforces that the proposal ID comes from search_governance_proposals, though that is already in the schema.

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 states the tool retrieves an Aave DAO proposal's payloads, explaining what payloads are (per-chain execution packages with state, timelock, grace period, contract calls). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it takes no 'version' argument and that DAO governance 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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to tell whether a passed proposal has landed on every chain yet.' It also clarifies a common source of confusion (the version argument). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as get_governance_proposal or get_proposal_votes, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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