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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about what the workspace contains but does not disclose behaviors like session-not-found errors, freshness of data, or whether it accepts a hash. This is reasonable given the strong annotations, but it doesn't go beyond them.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core meaning ('Current state') and then enumerates the contents concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (the workspace's current contents). It doesn't discuss error cases or structure, but the lack of an output schema is somewhat offset by the explicit list of contained items. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (hash and agent_id), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description does not add further parameter-level details, but it doesn't need to since the schema is complete. 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?

The description clearly states the resource ('citizen bridge workspace') and its contents (tracked officials, saved comparisons, drafted actions, messages). It implies a read operation via 'Current state' and the title 'Read Bridge Workspace'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling bridge tools, the scope is specific enough to distinguish it from create/compare/letter.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as politics_bridge_create or politics_bridge_compare. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a hash) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The title and name imply it reads a workspace, but explicit usage context is absent.

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