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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explain what 'bridge resolutions' are, whether filters are required despite the schema making them optional, or any output characteristics. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not clarify what 'bridge resolutions' are, nor does it reconcile the phrase 'for an entity/token' with the schema's optional parameters. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks important context about return values and whether zero-filter calls are allowed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for entity_id and token_symbol. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'entity/token', so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not fully compensate for the ambiguity around optional filters.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and names a resource ('bridge resolutions'), scoped to entity/token. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and is distinguishable from siblings like bridge_resolve or bridge_approve, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use bridge_status versus sibling tools such as bridge_resolve or audit_trail. The description defines what the tool does but not the context, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose it over alternatives.

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