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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real value: it discloses the atomic multi-step composition (approve → supply → allowance cleanup) and, importantly, that no live on-chain state is read, warning the agent that validation is absent. It does not explicitly state that nothing is broadcast or how the returned plan is executed, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what the tool produces, the second front-loads the key limitation. The negation list of unqueried data sources is dense but each item is meaningful for the agent's expectations.

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?

With an output schema present, 100% parameter coverage, and a readOnly annotation, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. Minor residual gaps are what happens if the asset is outside the fixed reserve list and how the resulting plan is submitted, though these may be covered by the output schema or sibling tools.

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 every parameter (asset, amount, sender, chain_id, on_behalf_of) is already documented in the schema, including the base-units constraint and the aToken recipient default. The description adds only the market-scoping notion of a 'fixed major-reserve list' and does not elaborate per-parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Prepare a fixed-market Aave V3 Pool supply') and enumerates the three artifacts produced: an exact ERC-20 approval, supply calldata, and allowance cleanup bundled as one atomic wallet plan. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as prepare_aave_v3_borrow, prepare_aave_v3_repay, and prepare_aave_v3_withdraw.

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 'fixed-market' qualifier plus 'No live balance, allowance, reserve, cap, pause, or rate data is queried' gives the agent clear context that this is a purely constructive call for a market previously obtained from get_aave_v3_markets, and that no pre-flight validation happens here. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or stating a when-not condition, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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