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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the data source, the read:false error state and its proper interpretation, the dynamic reward APY behavior, the USD oracle-price basis, and the staking-versus-supplying distinction. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs to avoid misreporting results.

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 long but every sentence carries a distinct, decision-relevant fact. It front-loads the product, scope, and return structure, then layers caveats about pricing, APY, and error interpretation in a logical order.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return values and error behavior. It covers umbrella and legacy contents, user-scoped additions, the read:false failure mode, reward APY semantics, and USD pricing, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation 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?

The single 'user' parameter is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only a slight nuance about the parameter affecting both umbrella and legacy generations, which is useful but not a substantial semantic addition.

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 product and scope ('Aave's Safety Module, Ethereum only') and states it is read from contracts rather than the Aave API. It then enumerates the two returned generations, making the tool's operation and output unmistakable.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it is Ethereum-only, contract-sourced, and should be included in portfolio answers because staking is part of a wallet's Aave position. It also explains exactly when to pass 'user'. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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