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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavior: chain coverage is dynamic rather than fixed, short slugs are accepted, and unknown chains produce a named error instead of a schema rejection. It does not cover pagination or result limits, but the disclosure goes beyond annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The third sentence is long but packs essential dynamic-chain and error semantics; the 'Now covers' phrasing is slightly temporal noise.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, it covers the three call patterns, validates dynamic chain values, and references the chain source sibling. The cursor pagination parameter is not explained, and there is no return-format hint, but an agent has enough to invoke the common modes 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It maps chain to the live get_chain_coverage list, token_address to 'by token', counterparty to a counterparty on a foreign chain, and explains error behavior. Cursor is left unexplained, but the main selection parameters are meaningfully described.

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?

Description names a specific resource ('cross-chain bridge transfers from the transfers pipeline') and enumerates the retrieval modes (network-wide, by token, by counterparty). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_crosschain_stats or get_address_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?

It gives clear contexts for use: recent network-wide, by token, or by counterparty, and directs the agent to get_chain_coverage for valid chains. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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