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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that nothing is charged, no order is created, and returns estimated destination amount, per-leg USD values, and DLN protocol costs. This meaningfully extends the readOnlyHint into concrete behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information: free read and no execution. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, semantics, supported chains, return values, and usage context without redundancy.

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?

The description is strong overall: it covers safety, parameter roles, supported chains, and precedes the execution siblings. The remaining gaps are minor but real — the exact token identifier format and caller_id semantics are not addressed — though the output schema likely covers return expectations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that amount is in source-token base units, what src_token/src_chain and dst_token/dst_chain mean, and listing supported chains. However, it leaves caller_id unexplained and does not specify whether tokens are addresses or symbols.

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 names the operation (quote), the resource (cross-chain bridge via deBridge DLN), and explicitly disambiguates from execution tools by saying 'FREE read, no execution.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like bridge_in and bridge_out.

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?

Explicitly states the intended workflow position: 'Use before bridge_in / bridge_out.' It also tells the agent that no order is created, clarifying that this is a pre-flight quoting step, not an execution step.

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