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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered most recent first, v4 covers all chains while v3 is per market/chain due to upstream pagination, and the output includes scope fields. It doesn't cover every operational detail, but it complements the annotations well.

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: definition/order, version-specific behavior, and alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 still gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: it covers versions, chains, markets, ordering, and the alternative tool. Combined with the fully described input schema and read-only annotations, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how version, chainId, and market relate (v3 reads one market/chain at a time; pass chainId to read another), which helps an agent choose parameter combinations correctly.

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 verb and resource: a wallet's Aave transaction history, enumerating operation types (supply, borrow, repay, withdraw, collateral changes) and versions. It also names the sibling to avoid, get_user_positions, so the tool's identity is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use get_user_positions to find holdings, not this tool. It also explains when v3 versus v4 is involved and how chainId is used to read another market, making the selection criteria concrete.

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