Harbor Crew Cross-Chain Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a meaningful safety trait (read-only, no payment initiated) which matters given the paid sibling. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, why the tool takes zero inputs, or which report is being read, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and closed with the safety-critical constraint. No filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the enumerated return fields (price, networks, batch size, payment destination) usefully describe the payload, and the read-only guarantee is stated. The remaining gap is the unexplained absence of any parameter identifying which cross-chain report is being read.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds field-level meaning by naming the four values the caller should expect, which partly compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (read) and enumerates the exact resource fields returned (price, supported networks, batch size, payment destination) for a cross-chain report. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling submit_paid_cross_chain_report by noting it never initiates a payment, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 closing clause 'never initiates a payment' implies this is the inspect-before-you-pay step relative to submit_paid_cross_chain_report, but the description never states when to call it, what prerequisites exist, or that submitting should follow it. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the tool only submits a receipt and signature for verification, never touches funds or signs, and that payment goes directly to the operator. It omits failure/idempotency behavior (e.g. whether a txHash can be redeemed twice), which keeps it below 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition and followed by the safety boundary. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 four-required-param mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, the exact payment amount, and the safety envelope. What is missing is post-call behavior: what the redeemed report contains and how verification failure is surfaced.

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 100%, so each of the four parameters is already documented with pattern and role. The description adds only framing (receipt and signature are for verification, not transfer authorization), which is useful context but not new per-parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Redeem a report') plus the exact precondition (manual 0.02 USDC payment on Base plus a signed authorization). The flow is clearly distinguishable from a quote-style sibling, though the alternative tool is never named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('after the user has manually paid') and strong when-not guidance by enumerating what the tool never does (pays, moves funds, approves, signs). It does not explicitly route to get_cross_chain_report_quote for the pre-payment step, so it falls short of a 5.

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