athena_bridge_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the accounting rule. It does not reveal whether the tool records data, returns a recommendation, mutates state, or has side effects—significant gaps for an 'account' tool.

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?

A single sentence with a clear action phrase followed by the decision criterion is efficient and front-loaded. It packs meaning without waste, though a slightly structured breakdown could aid readability.

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 tool with 7 nested parameters and no output schema, the description omits expected return value, effect on system state, and relationship to nearby budgeting tools. The provided decision rule helps but leaves the invocation context under-specified.

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 0%, so the description's conceptual mapping adds real value: it groups parameters into value (routing/reuse/quality/resilience) versus cost (build/maintenance/locked-capacity), interpreting the raw parameter names into a decision framework.

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 names a specific action ('Apply living-bridge cost accounting') and a concrete decision rule ('build only when...'), which makes the tool's purpose identifiable and distinct from generic accounting tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 'living-bridge' framing differentiates it.

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 implies this tool should be used to decide whether to build based on cost-benefit, but it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools like athena_budget_record or athena_worker_cost_observe. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios are provided.

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