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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses that the tool is non-custodial, that it returns unsigned transaction data which the depositor wallet signs and broadcasts, and the cost/auth model (free with X-ORKID-API-Key or $0.002 USDC via x402). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling a paid, open-world endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return/payment behavior — no filler. The chain and token enumeration is dense but each item carries routing information.

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 correctly explains that the return value is unsigned transaction data rather than a broadcast result, and it covers payment and auth. It stops short of mentioning quote expiry, fee breakdown, or whether a route/simulation is included, which a bridging agent would want to know.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the chain-name-to-id mapping (Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Robinhood Chain 4663) that the schema only expresses as bare numbers. Token eligibility is also stated at a high level.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a non-custodial cross-chain bridge quote (Across)') plus the supported asset and chain set, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling orkid_quote or orkid_swap_link, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Use when a user wants to bridge crypto across chains or move funds to Robinhood Chain tokenized equities' is a concrete when-to-use condition. It names no alternatives or exclusions, so an agent choosing between this and orkid_quote on the same chain gets no explicit routing rule.

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