athena_transport_bridge_to_collective

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that economics are never derived from the AOR bridge score, which is a valuable behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether it mutates the collective packet or just returns a packet), nor does it discuss the persist parameter's effect.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a critical caveat. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 tool has 4 parameters, a nested required economics object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the economics fields, the role of actor and persist, or what a successful transport returns or changes. The caveat is helpful but insufficient for a complex tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only provides high-level context: 'bridge economics' maps to the economics object and 'AOR bridge candidate' maps to candidate_ref. It does not explain individual parameters like actor, persist, or the nested economics fields, leaving the schema alone to carry semantics.

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 a specific action ('Carry explicit bridge economics') with a defined source ('AOR bridge candidate') and destination ('Collective bridge-accounting packet'). It distinguishes from sibling transport tools by focusing on bridge economics and the AOR bridge context.

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 when to use the tool: when you have explicit bridge economics to transfer. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'never derived' caveat provides some guidance. Good context but no explicit when-not-to-use advice.

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