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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: DAO governance is not market-specific, Governance V3 is unrelated to Aave markets, full-text search covers title/author/description and is relevance-ranked, and vote tallies are denominated in AAVE. This goes well beyond the structured annotation without overclaiming. It does not describe return shape or error behavior, but that is not essential for selection here.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with the most important disambiguation about the 'version' argument. Each sentence earns its place: scope, state-filter guidance, search behavior, and vote-tally currency. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 list/search tool with optional parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the core purpose, the state lifecycle meanings, search behavior, and the fact that vote tallies are in AAVE. Remaining parameter details (limit, offset, includeSummaries) are already well-documented in the input 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 beyond the schema by explaining the practical semantics of 'state': 'active' means open for voting and 'queued' means passed and waiting timelock. It also clarifies that 'search' combines with 'state' and that no 'version' argument should be passed, which is valuable contextual parameter guidance.

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: 'List or search Aave DAO governance proposals.' It explicitly distinguishes this from market-scoped tools by clarifying that DAO governance is not per-market and that Governance V3 is unrelated to Aave v3/v4 markets. This makes the tool's purpose instantly identifiable among the large sibling set.

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 gives concrete guidance for when to use specific parameters: use state 'active' for what is live now, state 'queued' for what is waiting to execute, and 'search' for full-text relevance queries. It clearly explains that the tool takes no 'version' argument, preventing a likely misuse. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools like get_governance_proposal for single-proposal lookups, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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