midl_get_bridge_status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true) are consistent. The description adds value by detailing what the tool shows (BTC confirmations, validator processing, EVM credit status, suggestions), which goes beyond the structured fields and gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the tool's core function, then lists specifics.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (BTC confirmations, validator processing, EVM credit status, suggestions). For a simple read-only tool with one param, this provides adequate context 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 input schema has one parameter 'btcTxId' with 100% description coverage (pattern and description). The tool description does not add any additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 explicitly states the tool tracks BTC→EVM bridge transaction status, listing specific status components (BTC confirmations, validator processing, EVM credit status). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like midl_bridge_btc_to_evm which initiates the bridge.

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 usage after initiating a bridge transaction by mentioning 'track the status'. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the purpose is clear and it's the only status-check tool among siblings, minimizing confusion.

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