get_governance_proposals

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains that the tool queries the AAVE Governance V3 subgraph and lists the return fields. It also enumerates proposal states and their numeric codes, providing essential behavioral context.

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 well-structured, starting with usage guidance and then providing technical details. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value; 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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return fields comprehensively. It provides enough context for selection and invocation.

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 input schema already describes the parameters (first, state). The description adds value by explaining the meaning of state numbers (e.g., 1=Active) and access levels (1=short executor/2=long executor), which are not in 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: querying AAVE governance proposals. It provides concrete example queries and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing specifically on governance.

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 clear usage guidance with example queries and context ('when the user asks about AAVE governance'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools are mostly non-governance AAVE operations, making the distinction clear.

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