Check the work actually happened

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.