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

The description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation: it says the tool 'best-effort updates the matching BridgeTransfer row,' which is a write operation despite readOnlyHint=true. This is a significant safety-relevant inconsistency that should be flagged.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and then providing useful context about the underlying mechanism and return values. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 covers the operation's trigger, external behavior, return mapping, and internal side effect. With an output schema present and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the main gap is caller_id documentation and the conflict with readOnlyHint.

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 description adds useful meaning for order_id by explaining that it is returned from bridge_in/bridge_out. However, caller_id is not explained at all, and the schema has 0% description coverage, so one parameter remains semantically opaque.

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 identifies a specific action—polling a dispatched DLN bridge order's fulfillment status—and clearly ties it to bridge_in/bridge_out as a follow-up. It names the external endpoint and the returned values, making it easy to distinguish from other status 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?

The description states explicitly that this is a follow-up to bridge_in/bridge_out and explains why polling is necessary (the order stays 'pending'/'broadcast' in Crank's record unless polled). It does not list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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