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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the Aave API lags the chain, so dependent actions will not proceed until processing catches up. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and helps the agent understand why polling this endpoint matters. It does not cover edge cases like error handling or timeouts, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 sentences deliver the purpose, usage context, required inputs, and termination condition with no filler. The most important guidance is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 polling tool, the description is complete: it explains when to call it, what to pass, what to expect (processed becomes true), and why it is necessary. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of the 'processed' flag. No critical calling information appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by clarifying that txHash is the hash you broadcast and that operations must come from the server-built transaction. This provenance detail helps the agent pass the correct values, going slightly beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'ask whether the Aave API has processed it' after sending a transaction. It clearly distinguishes this tool from polling an RPC or sleeping, and from prepare_action's dependent-follow-up behavior. The title reinforces the purpose as a question about transaction visibility.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('after sending a transaction'), what to pass (txHash and operations), and what to do ('Poll until processed is true, then continue'). It also names the alternative it replaces—sleeping or polling an RPC—and explains why prepare_action is not sufficient on its own.

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