usdc_estimate_bridge

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 useful semantics beyond that: the quote is an estimate (not a state change), amountRaw is the delivered amount, and fromAmountRaw is the source spend cap for execution. It does not discuss quote expiry or rate limits, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the quote purpose and the destination-amount semantics are front-loaded, and the execution-cap guidance follows naturally.

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 takes on explaining return values and does so for the critical field (fromAmountRaw) that chains into execution. It omits other likely quote fields (fees, ETA, rate), but covers what an agent needs to call it and use the result correctly.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description reinforces amountRaw's meaning ('what arrives on the destination') but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is 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 and resource ('Quote moving USDC between chains'), names the provider (Relay), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling usdc_execute_bridge that consumes its output. An agent can distinguish it from execute_bridge and usdc_execute_bridge without opening a 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?

The description explains the workflow role: this produces a quote, and its fromAmountRaw output is what you 'cap usdc_execute_bridge with'. That routes the agent to the right follow-up tool. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it, so it does not reach a 5.

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