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

The description is unusually transparent about mechanics: it registers the hash with Skip Go's tracker, reads Skip state, may also read Axelar, and never infers landing from elapsed time. However, the description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation by saying the tool 'registers the hash' with a tracker, which is a state-changing action. Per the rubric, this contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 every sentence carries operational value: prerequisite, side effect, source-chain differences, return semantics, landing criteria, measured times, and wait interval. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before detailed behavior, and there is 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?

For an agent to call and poll this tool correctly, the description covers the prerequisite, the one-time registration effect, cross-chain behavior, what landed means, and how long to wait between calls. An output schema exists for return fields, so the description does not need to restate them. The only serious flaw is the annotation contradiction, not a completeness gap.

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 the schema already fully documents chain and tx_hash. The description adds contextual behavior such as Base/Arbitrum additionally reading Axelar, but it does not add standalone parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear, specific operation: determining where a REGEN bridge transaction stands using the hash the caller broadcast after prepare_bridge. It distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to REGEN bridge transactions, naming its dependency on prepare_bridge, and explaining its keyless nature.

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 explicitly says to call it after prepare_bridge and warns that a status read before registration is blank forever. It also gives polling guidance by saying how long to wait before asking again. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative status tools, so it stops 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.