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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context: 'No wallet action, no signing, no chain read' clarifies the operation is purely local/deterministic ('Deterministically inspect'), and 'FREE' signals no cost. It stops short of describing what the inspection returns or how policy failures surface.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose (deterministic policy inspection of a bridge request) is front-loaded. Leading with 'FREE' is slightly informal but informative about cost.

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 tool with nested-object inputs and no output schema, the description covers side-effect safety but omits the outcome: it never says what inspection produces (pass/fail, violation details) or what acknowledge_unconstrained does. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the result semantics are a real gap.

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 0% and the two parameters are complex nested objects (action with 9 required fields, policy with 10 fields including acknowledge_unconstrained). The description adds no explanation of what 'action' or 'policy' mean, nor of the null-vs-array semantics or the purpose of acknowledge_unconstrained.

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?

Uses a specific verb (inspect) and resource (a Circle CCTP V2 Base-to-Ethereum native-USDC bridge request) and states the scope precisely. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like observe_bridge and preflight_bridge, which an agent would need to choose between.

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?

'Against explicit policy' implies this is a policy-evaluation tool with no side effects, giving enough context to infer usage. But it never states when to pick this over observe_bridge or preflight_bridge, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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