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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, and the description is consistent while adding crucial behaviors annotations cannot express: the tool registers the hash with Skip Go's tracker as a side effect, cross-reads Axelar for Base/Arbitrum, uses a strict landed criterion (STATE_COMPLETED_SUCCESS or executed), and never infers landing from elapsed time. Cost and keyless signing status are also stated.

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?

It is front-loaded and information-dense, but the single long paragraph packs many parenthetical clauses and repeats the keyless/no-signing point twice ('Keyless, no wallet, nothing signed' … 'free and keyless, nothing to sign'). Tighter structuring would improve readability.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description still explains return shape (landed, source states, one-sentence status, timing estimate, poll interval) and covers the cross-chain tracking nuance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 100%, including the enum for chain and hash format description, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only marginal context by tying the hash to prepare_bridge output; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('where a REGEN bridge transaction stands'), defines the scope by naming the exact hash source (broadcast after prepare_bridge) and enumerates which chains are tracked. An agent can distinguish it from prepare_bridge and from the various request_status/net_order_status siblings.

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 clear when-to-use context (after prepare_bridge, with the broadcast hash) and an important when-not caveat ('a status read before that registration is blank forever'), plus polling guidance ('how long to wait before asking again'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to use instead in edge cases.

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