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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: generates templates and tracks the approval process. However, it omits details about persistence, side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior on repeated calls, leaving some ambiguity for a state-changing workflow starter.

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 sentences with no filler. The key action, generated artifacts, tracking behavior, and follow-up tool are all packed efficiently. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 workflow starter with a well-documented input schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the workflow, lists the templates, mentions approval tracking, and directs to the next tool. It lacks return/result details, but no output schema exists and the follow-up step is explicitly indicated, making the overall context sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even if the description adds no parameter details. The description does not mention parameters, but the schema already documents check_id, entity_id, and expiry_days with sufficient meaning. No extra semantics are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Start' with the resource 'bridge resolution workflow' and enumerates generated templates (Risk Acceptance, Contract Renegotiation, Concentration Policy, Exit Strategy), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like bridge_approve and bridge_status. This makes the tool's role in the pipeline unambiguous.

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 clearly states the action ('Start bridge resolution workflow') and provides sequencing guidance by directing the agent to call bridge_approve for sign-off. It does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or name alternative starting points, but the context is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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