usdc_get_bridge_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that refresh=true polls the bridge provider once, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether refresh introduces latency.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the refresh behavior.

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 read-only status lookup with decent schema coverage, the definition is adequate to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the returned status shape or possible states, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent interpreting results.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds value by clarifying that bridgeId identifies the bridge and that refresh=true triggers a single provider poll, which is more than the bare boolean schema provides.

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 states a specific resource (USDC bridge) and operation (get status by id), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as usdc_get_bridge_orders or usdc_execute_bridge, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 what the tool returns and how refresh works, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like usdc_get_bridge_orders or usdc_execute_bridge. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'status'.

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