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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only action via 'return,' but does not explicitly state whether there are side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. The return format is not described beyond what the output schema might already convey.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It leaves 'bridge' undefined and does not explain what the 'input contract' means or when a user would call this. Given the lack of annotations and the presence of siblings, a bit more context would help, but it is not severely lacking.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'input contract,' which hints at parameter documentation, but since no parameters exist, it adds no extra meaning. No further elaboration is necessary.

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 uses a specific verb 'return' and identifies the resource as 'the bridge's capabilities and input contract.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bind_identity or resolve_agent, which perform different actions. However, the term 'bridge' is undefined and could be ambiguous for an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like list_registrations or score_agent.

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