bridge_status

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

Discloses return values (status, tx hashes, times) and notes support for all providers. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it implies a read-only operation without stating explicitly, which is acceptable for a status check.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage instructions, return summary. Front-loaded and free of fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values. Covers all necessary usage aspects for a status check tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning by explaining the two usage modes (trackingId alone vs txHash+provider+chains) and detailing return fields. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 it checks the status of a cross-chain bridge transfer, lists supported providers, and specifies how to identify the transfer (tracking ID or tx hash + provider). This distinguishes it from siblings like bridge_execute or bridge_get_quote.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on when to use (after bridge_execute) and how to provide identifiers (trackingId or txHash+provider). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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