Bridge history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing the full status taxonomy (PENDING_DEPOSIT, PROCESSING, SUCCESS, REFUNDED, FAILED) and that each record carries a refund address, which tells the agent how to interpret results. It omits ordering, pagination and account-selection behaviour, which keeps it from a 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the status list is the most decision-relevant content and appears early. The phrasing 'every bridge ... with status (...) and refund address' is slightly elliptical but readable.

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 zero-argument read tool with no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it only names two pieces of each record (status and refund address). Amount, source/destination chain, timestamps and ordering are unstated, so an agent cannot fully predict the shape of the response even though it can call the tool 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully confirms the scope is implicit-account-wide ('this account') rather than requiring a filter, which is the only semantic an agent could get wrong here.

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 names the resource precisely ('every bridge of this account') and enumerates the status values returned, so an agent can tell it is a history/listing read rather than the bridge-creation sibling blackpool_bridge. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, so it stops at 4.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of statuses like PENDING_DEPOSIT and PROCESSING suggests this is the tool to poll for bridge progress, but the description never states when to call it or what alternative exists. With blackpool_bridge and blackpool_recover as near neighbours, an explicit 'use blackpool_bridge to initiate a bridge' line would have removed the inference.

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