bridge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them – no paid API calls are incurred and no credentials are returned. It still doesn't say what the readiness check actually inspects or how failure is reported.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the cost and credential caveats are appended tightly to the core purpose rather than padding it.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what a readiness result looks like, but it only states what is *not* returned (credentials). For a simple zero-param diagnostic this is close to adequate, but the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies nothing is configurable and no argument is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (local Gemini/Jev integration readiness), which is clearly distinct from the sibling action tools delegate_task and jev_evaluate. It doesn't explicitly name the siblings, but 'readiness' frames it as a diagnostic rather than a work-performing tool.

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?

'without making paid requests' gives clear context that this is a zero-cost preflight check, implying it should be used before invoking a paid path like jev_evaluate. No explicit when-not or alternative is named, but the operational context is legible.

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