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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the conceptual role of a hub, the return fields, the chain-scoping behavior, and the sibling routing. This goes meaningfully beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The v4-only constraint is front-loaded, followed by the core definition, return contents, sibling guidance, and optional parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two optional parameters, the description is complete: it explains what a hub is, what the tool returns, how to restrict by chain, and where to go for hub assets. No output schema exists, but the description states the return fields sufficiently. The annotations and schema cover the remaining context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces chainId behavior and the v4-only constraint, but does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('Aave v4 hubs') and the exact fields returned (hubId, address, chain, totals). It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_hub_assets by explicitly routing hubId lookups there, making the tool's 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'v4 only', 'Omit chainId to cover every supported v4 chain', and points to get_hub_assets as the alternative when a specific hub's assets are needed. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus a closely related sibling.

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