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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output context (statuses, transaction hashes, chain IDs) and identifies the upstream requestId source. However, it says 'Free read' while the appended SAP execution guidance says 'Pricing: paid read-premium,' creating an unresolved cost/execution ambiguity.

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 first paragraph is tight, front-loaded, and useful. The following SAP MCP execution guidance is generic, largely repeated in the input schema, and adds significant length without tool-specific value.

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 one-param read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, input origin, return summary, and execution intent. The main gap is the inconsistent free-vs-paid pricing language, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 fully documents the requestId parameter. The description adds value by telling the agent exactly where to obtain it: from sap_phoenix_get_cross_chain_quote. This provenance goes beyond the schema's generic 'from the cross-chain quote response.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a cross-chain deposit via Relay.link.' It also names the upstream tool that provides the required requestId, so an agent can distinguish this status lookup from other bridge-status and quote tools.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: after obtaining a requestId from sap_phoenix_get_cross_chain_quote, and it positions the call as a 'Free read.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the prerequisite and intent are clear enough.

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