lifi_prepare_bridge_intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns raw transaction steps, confirming non-execution and providing output context. It doesn't mention rate limits or errors, but the added value is sufficient given the 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a clear return-value statement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Description covers the core purpose but doesn't detail the output structure or the flow after preparation (e.g., whether steps include approvals or how they should be used with an execution tool). Since no output schema exists, the description could be richer, but it's adequate for understanding the tool's role.

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 all parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3 when schema covers everything.

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 clearly states the verb 'prepare', the resource 'cross-chain bridge route', and the key distinction that it returns raw transaction steps without executing. This differentiates it from lifi_execute_bridge (which executes) and lifi_get_quote (which only quotes).

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?

The description implies usage: use this when you need to prepare a bridge route for an external wallet without executing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'without executing them' and 'external wallet' provide clear context. It could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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