What BRYDGE has found so far

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.