estimate_bridge_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing whether this is a read-only operation, what units the estimate returns, or how the optional 'bridge' parameter affects the result.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any extraneous wording. It is short and easy to parse, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the estimate looks like (e.g., time in seconds/minutes) and the impact of the optional bridge parameter. It does neither, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers all three parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., 'Specific bridge (returns all if not specified)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already handles this dimension.

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 the tool estimates bridge transfer duration, with a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('bridge transfer time'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_bridge_quote or execute_bridge, though it could have been more explicit about the required source and destination chains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other bridge-related tools such as get_bridge_quote or rubic_get_bridge_quotes. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool.

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