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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: the read is non-mutating ('does not move the clock') and access is gated by possession of the code ('the code is the capability'). It does not cover error behavior, whether the bridge can expire, or what the returned payload contains.

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 very short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what a successful read returns (bridge content? metadata?) and what failure looks like. Terms like 'bridge' and 'meld' are never defined, leaving the agent to infer the domain.

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% for the single 'code' parameter, so the schema already documents its origin ('from the capability URL'). The description reinforces the parameter's significance via 'the code is the capability' but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. 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: 'Read a live bridge by code.' The 'read' verb distinguishes it from meld_create and meld_resolve by implication, though it never names those siblings or contrasts their purposes. An agent can tell this retrieves something, but must infer what a 'bridge' is.

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 code is the capability' and 'does not move the clock' implicitly tell the agent this is a non-mutating lookup keyed on possession of a code. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition distinguishing it from meld_resolve, and no statement of what happens when the code is invalid or expired.

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