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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds crucial semantic context: 'ALLOW is policy only, never wallet authority' and that it returns 'a signed portable bridge artifact.' This clarifies that a positive result is not authorization to execute, which is important behavioral information. It does not describe rate limits, error behavior, or what a DENY result entails.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes timing and scope, the second states the purpose and return, the third adds a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with the most actionable information (when to call).

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 a complex nested input schema, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It provides purpose and a key semantic warning but omits any explanation of the required 'action' or 'policy' fields, leaving an agent unable to confidently construct a valid invocation without inspecting the raw schema.

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 both parameters are nested objects with many sub-properties. The description only mentions 'policy' in passing and gives no meaning for the 'action' object or any of its fields. With the schema providing no descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving an agent with no semantic guidance for constructing correct inputs.

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 states a specific action ('evaluates strict policy' for a bridge) and resource ('Base USDC to Ethereum via Circle CCTP V2'), which clearly separates it from preflight_swap or preflight_payment. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like inspect_bridge or observe_bridge, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between preflight and inspection 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?

It explicitly says to call this 'BEFORE an agent asks its wallet to bridge,' giving clear temporal context. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'do not use after a bridge is submitted' or 'use inspect_bridge for existing transactions'), so it stops short of full guidance.

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