estimate_bridge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'without executing' largely restates the safety profile. It does add useful return context (estimated output, provider, time) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about quote staleness, rate limits, or fees beyond the headline fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return shape. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. Minor gaps remain around quote validity/expiry and whether execution must follow promptly, which matter for a bridge quote workflow.

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% (amount in raw units, source/destination chain IDs), so the schema does the parameter work. The description adds no unit conventions or constraints of its own, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Get a cross-chain bridge quote') on a specific resource, and immediately scopes it as non-executing. The phrase 'without executing' implicitly separates it from the execute_bridge sibling, so an agent can pick between quote and execution without inspecting either schema.

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 a clear condition for use: fetching a quote when no execution is desired. The counterpart (executing a bridge) is implied rather than named, and no prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., quote expiry, minimum amounts) are stated, so it is clear but not fully routing-grade.

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