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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: result ordering (newest first), pagination semantics ('rows is one page'), and the meaning of the count_30d aggregate.

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?

Two dense sentences with the scope and ordering front-loaded, then return-shape semantics. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the response (rows are one page, count_30d is a 30-day total) and the sort order. It is nearly complete for invocation, though the required address format and limit/cursor usage remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for three parameters. It gives only indirect hints ('rows is one page' implies cursor-based paging) and never explains the required address format, the meaning of limit, or its default of 25.

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 resource (cross-chain bridge transfers) and an exact scope predicate (address is sender or recipient on any chain), plus ordering (newest first). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_address_activity or get_bridge_activity.

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 phrase 'the rows the site's Cross Chain tab shows' implies the UI context in which this is the right tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many get_address_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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