find_bridge_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explicitly says the tool never signs or sends and returns transactions for review, and it discloses that direction availability is checked 'right now' and that an ERC-20 approval may be included. It does not cover every possible failure mode or state that it is read-only in those exact words, but the core behavioral risk is well addressed.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and outputs, then adds the critical safety caveat that the tool never signs or sends. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the main return elements (OFT contract, direction, fee, transaction, approval transaction) and the no-execution behavior. It does not fully specify the transaction object's structure or how omitted amount/recipient affects the response beyond implication, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains token, fromChain, toChain, amount, recipient, decimals, and oftContract. The description adds useful relational context about when a transaction is built and when an approval transaction appears, but it does not materially deepen individual parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a precise resource ('bridge route for a token between two networks'), listing concrete outputs such as the OFT contract, direction-enabled status, fee, and transaction. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_supported_networks, but it never explicitly names or contrasts them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly conveys when a transaction is produced ('if amount and recipient are given') and the tool's non-executing role ('NEVER signs or sends; it returns transactions for a human or wallet to review and sign'). It does not explicitly route users to sibling alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that usage context is clear.

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