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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing the two-phase build/completion flow, the fee model ('charged once per order on the build leg, never re-charged on the completion leg'), paper trading behavior, idempotency semantics, and the reconciliation mechanism via order_id. It also flags that the unsigned transaction must be signed with the wallet for wallet_address. This gives an agent strong awareness of side effects and financial implications.

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 long but densely informative, with clear paragraph breaks for the two-phase flow, fees/paper trading, idempotency, and reconciliation. The main purpose is front-loaded, and most sentences add operational value. It could be slightly tightened, but the length is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 complex 13-parameter bridge tool, the description covers the overall workflow, signing requirement, fee behavior, and post-completion polling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The main completeness gap is the set of undocumented parameters, especially dst_token, which prevents the description from being fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for several key parameters: src_token as the Solana mint, amount as base units, evm_recipient as the address on dst_chain, signed_transaction mode, idempotency_key, and order_id. However, it leaves important parameters unexplained, including the required dst_token, plus verify, caller_id, pay_in_crank, and payment_header, which are not self-evident from the schema alone.

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: 'Bridge value from Solana out to a major EVM chain (non-custodial).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling bridge_in by direction and explicitly names target chains. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: without signed_transaction it returns an unsigned transaction to sign, and with signed_transaction it broadcasts the tx and returns a verification block. It also routes follow-up polling to get_bridge_status(order_id), which helps an agent choose next steps. It does not explicitly state when to prefer bridge_out over bridge_in or other alternatives, but the directional framing makes the primary use case clear.

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