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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: on-chain verification against exact amount, asset, recipient and expiry, execution via an exactly-once worker, and idempotent resubmission returning the existing record. It also warns that verification is not completion, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the cost signal ('FREE'), then the action, then verification semantics, then the follow-up. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what is submitted, how it is verified, what happens on duplicate submission, and where to go next. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema (quote_id from n9t2_bridge_quote, hash must be real not fabricated). The description reinforces the 'real payment' requirement but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema already supplies, 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: submit the transaction hash of the customer's real payment for a bridge quote. It clearly differentiates itself from n9t2_bridge_quote (which produces the quote) and n9t2_bridge_receipt (the follow-up), so an agent can place it in the bridge flow without opening any schema.

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 ordering context by naming the follow-up tool ('follow up with n9t2_bridge_receipt') and by tying the input back to n9t2_bridge_quote. It also flags the cost ('FREE') and the resubmission behavior. It stops short of an explicit when-not clause, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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