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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by adding the v4-only constraint and the important behavior that omitting chainId covers every supported v4 chain. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful operational context without repeating the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the key v4-only scoping, then the functional purpose, example user questions, and a chainId behavior note. Every sentence contributes useful information with 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?

For a read-only history query with all parameters fully documented in the schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the 'movement over a window' phrasing makes the expected time-series nature reasonably clear.

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 schema fully documents user, window, chainId, and version. The description adds some interpretive value by framing the window as movement over time and noting the all-chains behavior for chainId, but this is already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (a wallet's net worth, supplied, debt, health factor) and a clear action (how they moved over a window), which distinguishes it from sibling get_user_summary by the 'over time' framing. It also scopes the tool to Aave v4, making its purpose 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 use cases: answering 'how has my position changed' and checking proximity to liquidation. It also explains the cross-chain behavior when chainId is omitted. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the 'v4 only' restriction, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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