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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description clarifies that the rates are potential (what Aave would pay/charge), not actual earnings, and that zero balances are omitted. It also reveals the 'chainsCovered' output field. This adds meaningful behavioral context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 information-dense but every sentence serves a purpose: scope, output composition, semantic distinction, usage guidance, chainId default, and zero-balance omission. It is well-structured with the core definition first and no redundancy.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of distinguishing wallet balances from positions, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, what it means, how to filter by chain, and when to use an alternative. An agent can call this tool correctly and interpret the response without further clarification.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the chainId omission behavior and pointing to the 'chainsCovered' field, and clarifies that 'version' is only v4. This is a modest but useful addition beyond the schema.

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 exactly what the tool returns: wallet holdings of Aave-accepted tokens, per token and summed across chains, with per-chain breakdown, plus best supply and borrow APYs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from position-based queries ('This is the wallet, not a position') and names the sibling tool for the other use case (get_user_summary). The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: start 'what should I do with what I have' here, and 'how is my position doing' at get_user_summary. It also specifies the v4-only scope and the optionality of chainId ('Omit chainId to cover every chain'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to call it versus alternatives.

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