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

Beyond the readOnly and destructive annotations, the description explains important behavior: the API lags the chain, dependent actions are gated on this tool, and the correct pattern is to poll until processed is true. It does not state the exact return shape, but the behavioral contract is clear.

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 dense sentences front-load the version constraint, state the purpose, justify the tool over RPC polling, and give the polling protocol. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only check with full schema coverage, the description covers when, why, and how to poll, and names the critical prepare_action dependency. A slight gap is that the return value is only implied ('processed is true') rather than explicitly specified, which matters because there is no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that txHash is the hash you broadcast and that operations must be the array that came back from the server on that transaction, tightening the relationship between the two required parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it asks whether the Aave API has processed a sent transaction. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling family by explicitly contrasting with sleeping or polling an RPC and by naming prepare_action's dependency behavior.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('After sending a transaction'), which alternative to avoid ('instead of sleeping or polling an RPC'), and the underlying reason: prepare_action will not issue a dependent follow-up until the API has caught up. This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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