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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the data is resolved locally with no API or RPC round-trip, and it carries protocol behavior rules the agent must respect. It does not say what happens when chain_id points at a non-Base chain, but that is a minor gap against an otherwise informative disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the returned contract list, then the two caveats in short sentences. The phrase 'plus the protocol behaviour an agent must respect' is slightly vague and could be sharper, but there is no filler overall.

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 single-optional-param read tool with an output schema, the definition covers contents, locality, and scope limits. The only unaddressed case is the outcome of a mismatched chain_id, which the agent would have to discover at call time.

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% for the single optional chain_id, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the Base-only constraint ('Aerodrome is Base-only'), which hints at why chain_id exists, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('Locally return Aerodrome's Base contracts') and then enumerates the exact contents (AERO, veAERO, Voter, Router, v2 factory, RewardsDistributor, Slipstream, Sugar lenses). The explicit 'Aerodrome is Base-only; Velodrome is not prepared here' line separates it from deployment lookups for other protocols.

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?

Gives clear operating context ('No API or RPC request', data derived on chain from the Voter) and an explicit exclusion (Velodrome is not covered), which tells an agent when this tool does not apply. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements — e.g., that it should precede prepare_aerodrome_* calls — so the routing to alternatives is left implicit.

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