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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does warn about token loss and the need for confirmation, but it contains a critical contradiction: it says 'Only supports USDC transfers' yet lists usdt and eurc as possible currency values. This inconsistency could mislead the agent into sending unsupported tokens, undermining the disclosure of risks. This is a significant transparency flaw.

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 somewhat redundant: 'Creates a blockchain to blockchain bridge' appears twice (lines 1 and 3), wasting a sentence. The structure with @param blocks is clear, but the repetition makes it less concise than it could be. The confirmation instruction is also abruptly placed.

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?

The description covers the purpose, all parameters, a safety warning, and a confirmation requirement. The output schema exists, so the vague '@return: a json object' is acceptable. However, the currency contradiction and lack of any guidance on when to use this vs. other bridge-related tools leave gaps in the overall context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the @param lines in the description bear the full burden. All 8 parameters are explained with meaningful details, such as account_fk being a database ID (not an address) and blockchain having enumerated values. However, the currency parameter's listed values conflict with the 'only USDC' statement, reducing the reliability of the parameter documentation.

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's action ('Creates a blockchain to blockchain bridge'), which distinguishes it from sibling bridge tools like bridge_delete or bridge_list. However, the internal contradiction between 'Only supports USDC transfers' and the currency parameter listing 'usdc, usdt, eurc' creates ambiguity about the exact purpose, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 provides some usage context by instructing 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing' and warning 'Do not send any other tokens as these may be lost.' However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_off_ramp or bridge_on_ramp, nor does it explicitly state when not to use it beyond the token restriction.

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