q402_bridge_gas_tank

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and meets it. It discloses the read-only nature, the auth limitation (requires owner-sig auth, dashboard-bound), the static vs. live behavior, and what the response will and will not contain. This is a model of transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY GUIDANCE TOOL' to immediately set expectations. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, content, limitation, and usage. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for agent parsing.

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 and no annotations, the description fully compensates by specifying exactly what the response contains (fee model, chain list, deposit address, dashboard pointer) and its limitations. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool vs. alternatives, and to set user expectations 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 schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter, ownerAddress, with a clear pattern and description. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but since the schema fully documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The optionality and default behavior are already in 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 explicitly states this tool returns static guidance for the Bridge Gas Tank, not live data. It specifies the exact content: LINK/native fee model, 3-chain CCIP triangle, canonical deposit address, and dashboard pointer. It clearly distinguishes itself from live bridge tools like q402_bridge_history and q402_bridge_send by noting it is 'not yet wired' and returns no numbers.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to route a user to the right top-up flow.' It also states when-not/exclusions: 'don't expect numbers in the response' and explains that live balance is dashboard-bound until session-binding lands. It references the same follow-up as q402_bridge_history, providing a sibling context for the limitation.

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