get_cross_chain_bridge_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by confirming it 'Never signs or broadcasts' and disclosing that omitting a sender degrades to a preview. Still no mention of rate limits or quote expiry, so not 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?

Two tight sentences with no waste: the core action and return contents come first, followed by the safety and preview caveats. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough for correct invocation plus the preview/unsigned semantics. It stops short of covering quote lifetime or supported-chain preconditions, which the sibling list tool presumably handles.

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 100%, so the schema already carries all ten parameters with formats and ranges. The description's only param-relevant claim (missing sender -> preview) duplicates what userAddress's schema description already says, so it adds no meaning beyond structured fields.

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+resource ('Fetch a Relay quote') and names the payload contents ('fee breakdown and unsigned steps'), which is well beyond a tautology. It implicitly separates itself from check_bridge_order_status by being a quote rather than a status lookup, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use is implied (get a quote before executing a bridge) and the fallback mode is noted ('missing sender creates a preview'), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check_bridge_order_status or the onboarding tools, and no prerequisites are spelled out.

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