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

With no annotations, the description provides transparency about state transition (BRIDGING → DONE) and output (destination tx when delivered). It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a status check this is reasonable.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and provides key details efficiently.

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 the low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers input, behavior, and output hint. It lacks explicit return structure but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 single 'id' parameter has 0% schema coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'by id' and implying it identifies a route, but does not specify format or example. This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool returns status of an in-flight route by ID, with state transition (BRIDGING → DONE) and delivery of destination tx. It distinguishes from sibling tools like robyn_cross_chain (initiation) and robyn_quote (quoting).

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 use for status of an in-flight route by ID. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies this is for checking after route creation.

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