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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations: per-scope refresh intervals (EVM sites every minute, other sites and scope all every 5 minutes), the meaning of each state (COMPLETE, FLOOR, UNREADABLE, NO_LIABILITY), the explicit warning that ratio_floor is a lower bound and never the true ratio, and 'Observations only'. That is exactly the caveat layer the schema and annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information. The prose is dense and comma-spliced in places (the scope sentence and the include_sites sentence run long), which costs a point on readability, but nothing is redundant.

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 must explain the return payload, and it does: it enumerates the per-component fields (state, custody_raw, liability_raw, ratio, ratio_floor, worst_case, verified, first_verified_at) and even defines the verification rule. Nothing material an agent needs to interpret results is missing.

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 must carry all parameter meaning — and it does: it defines both enum values of scope with their cost/freshness tradeoff, states that symbol filters to a single asset, and states the dependency that include_sites only works together with symbol and what it returns (sites chain by chain with address, value, block).

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+resource: live WanBridge custody measured against bridge-issued supply, with the concrete anchor of the Bridge Solvency tab on orbitwan.io/data. It does not contrast itself with the sibling get_bridge_solvency, so an agent must infer that 'live' means current-state vs. the static/historical variant.

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?

Gives actionable selection guidance within the tool: scope majors (default) vs scope all and the different refresh cadence of each, plus 'symbol filters to one asset' and 'include_sites, with symbol only'. Missing the one piece of routing advice that matters most here — when to pick this over get_bridge_solvency — so it falls short of a 5.

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