Private bridge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is known from structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the transfer is private, and it returns upon submission rather than delivery unless wait=true — important for an async cross-chain operation. It still says nothing about fees, minimums, failed-route behavior, or irreversibility of a submitted transfer, which matters for a destructive tool.

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 compact sentences, purpose first, then parameter disambiguation, then return semantics — no filler. The semicolon-separated clauses and the pool enumeration are dense but each carries actionable information.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, valid inputs, and when it returns, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing are quantitative context (fees, limits), error/failure handling for a cross-chain route, and any note on whether a submitted transfer can be recalled.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage, the description carries most of the burden and does it well: it enumerates the nine valid `from` pool values, points `dest_asset` at blackpool_assets, and explains that `recipient` is either an EVM 0x address or a Solana address when the asset is sol_*. Only `amount` is left to the schema, which already documents it thoroughly.

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 — 'Private cross-chain transfer via NEAR Intents' — which is far more than the title's restatement and clearly implies bridging rather than sending or swapping. It never names a sibling such as blackpool_send or blackpool_swap, so the agent must infer the boundary from the 'cross-chain' qualifier alone.

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 clear preconditions: `from` must be one of the enumerated private pools, and `dest_asset` must come from the blackpool_assets sibling, which routes the agent to the right lookup call before invoking this one. It stops short of explicit exclusions — nothing says to use blackpool_send for same-chain moves or when a bridge route is unavailable.

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