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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: results are 'sorted by strength descending' and each bridge is asymmetric with 'from_here'/'from_there' readings explained. It stops short of stating permissions or any cap on the number of bridges returned.

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-loads the purpose, then the use case, then the return-shape nuance, then the alternative-routing sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting well by explaining the bridge asymmetry and sort order. It is slightly thin on output-volume expectations and access requirements, but complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 'id' and 'min_strength' are already documented. The description's mention of strength sorting hints at the strength dimension but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Return all bridge descriptions for a piece') and immediately bounds the scope ('the full connection topology without neighborhood metadata'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling traverse() by naming exactly what it omits.

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 an explicit use case ('scanning all edges from a node before deciding which to follow') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('Use traverse() instead if you also want neighbor kernels and shared principles'). This is close to textbook when/when-not guidance.

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