Bridging Bridge De Bridge Status

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

The description claims this is a read operation ('operation class read', 'check status'), but annotations include 'destructiveHint: true', which directly contradicts. This misleads the agent about side effects, violating transparency.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose statement, context, and usage guidance. No redundant or wasted words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what and when to call, and what to do with the result. Minor missing details like error handling, but acceptable for a simple status check.

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% with the parameter description already stating 'deBridge DLN order ID'. The description adds no new semantic meaning, so 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?

The description clearly states 'Check the status of a deBridge DLN cross-chain transfer', specifying the protocol (deBridge) and bridge type (DLN). It distinguishes from siblings like bridging_bridgeWormholeStatus by mentioning the specific bridge. The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after bridging_bridgeDeBridge' and instructs to 'keep the resulting status with the user-facing bridge audit trail', providing clear sequencing and output handling. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives for other bridges, but the context is sufficient.

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