check_bridge_order_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the read-only boundary but adds little beyond annotations, such as rate limits or return details, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by stating what is read and what is explicitly not done.

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 single-parameter status tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete and makes the non-mutating scope clear. It could say more about what status information is returned, since there is no output schema, but the essential invocation context is present.

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%, and the requestId parameter is already documented with its origin from quote or executable steps and a 256-character limit. The description only repeats that a request ID is required, adding no further parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: "Read Relay intent status v2 for a request ID." It also explicitly rules out submission and retry behavior, which helps distinguish it from action-oriented bridge tools in the sibling set.

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?

It makes the usage context clear by tying the tool to a request ID and stating that it does not submit or retry transactions. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, but the boundary is sufficiently clear for a read-only status check.

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