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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it is free, it does not re-read records, BRYDGE checks each action by itself, and it reports PENDING until the reporting window passes. This gives the agent a solid model of what happens when the tool is called.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about PENDING is placed logically at the end.

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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what is needed: what it returns, when it is available, cost, and side-effect behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already specifies that authorization is the id returned by brydge_supervise. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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 that the tool returns what BRYDGE has already found about an action without re-reading records, and the title reinforces the retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools, so it misses the top score.

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 gives clear contextual timing: use this tool after the destination's reporting window has passed, and expect PENDING before that. It implies the tool is the cheap, direct way to retrieve an existing finding, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the 24-hour period, the human-approval threshold, and the fact that verified reports raise the headroom. This helps the agent understand side effects and limits.

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 appropriately short for a simple query tool, front-loading the core meaning in the first sentence. Both sentences contribute value, though the phrasing is slightly dense and could be clearer.

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 read-only tool with one documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is counted, the time window, remaining capacity, and influencing factors. Missing error-case details are not critical at this complexity.

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?

The single parameter `action` is already fully documented at 100% schema coverage with an example. The description reinforces that the headroom applies to 'actions of this kind' but adds no new format, syntax, or value constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 what the tool does: it reports how many actions of a given kind may be performed in a 24-hour window, how many remain, and what affects that limit. It is a specific query about headroom, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like brydge_supervise, brydge_report_outcome, or brydge_get_finding. The quota framing implies it should be checked before acting, but that is left to inference rather than stated.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the report is stored alongside the destination's records and never changes the finding. This clarifies that the tool records a subjective account rather than altering the authoritative result, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and timing, and the second adds an important behavioral guarantee. Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a reporting tool with full parameter schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides the essential behavioral context. It explains the report's purpose, when it is used, and that it does not affect the official finding, which is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain outcome values, authorization, and the optional said field. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states a clear action and object: tell BRYDGE what you believe happened after an allowed action. It also clarifies the report's non-authoritative role, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools, though it never names them 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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: after carrying out an allowed action. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like brydge_verify, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer the intended moment of use.

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

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the ALLOWED response includes an authorization id to be written into the record, and ESCALATED means a human must decide. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the response-handling instructions are concise and actionable.

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 the output schema exists and idempotency is declared, the description covers the essential use case: when to call, what the response means, and how to proceed. It omits edge cases like denial handling beyond ESCALATED, but this is minor.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the tool description doesn't need to add parameter info. It adds none, which is acceptable given the schema's richness; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Ask'), a resource ('BRYDGE'), and the exact purpose ('whether you may take an action'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like brydge_verify or brydge_report_outcome by framing it as a pre-action permission gate.

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 clearly says to use it 'before you take it' and explains how to handle ALLOWED vs ESCALATED outcomes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, though the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that BRYDGE reads the destination system's own records with its own credential, and outlines possible statuses (VERIFIED, FAILED, MISMATCH, UNKNOWN, PENDING). It also discloses billing behavior, which is not in annotations. This is richer than the typical description and aligns with the idempotentHint (free re-checks when nothing changed).

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 concise yet dense, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: the method, status definitions, usage timing, and billing nuance. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the single parameter, an existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, how it verifies, what statuses mean, when to use it, and cost implications. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter ('The authorization id brydge_supervise returned for the action'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Check whether an action actually happened.' It specifies the method (reads destination system's records and compares) and distinguishes verification statuses. It implies a distinct role from siblings like brydge_supervise, which likely initiates actions, making the purpose 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it before you tell anyone the work is done.' It also provides cost implications ('A check that finds something new is billed; asking again when nothing has changed is free'), which helps decide when to call. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context and sibling list imply the right conditions.

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