q402_bridge_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and exceeds it. It discloses that the tool intentionally surfaces as an error, requires owner-sig auth, is dashboard-bound, and details the future shape of results. This gives the agent complete awareness of the tool's current non-functional 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 front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY GUIDANCE TOOL' and the key limitation (not yet wired), but it includes a long future-shape specification that may be more than needed for a stub. Still, the structure is logical and every sentence contributes context, making it slightly verbose but not bloated.

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?

For a stub tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers current behavior, intentional error surfacing, authentication context, and a concrete user-facing redirect. It also outlines the future response format, which is helpful for an agent planning around upcoming functionality. The only minor gap is the exact error message text, but it is not essential.

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% for the single optional ownerAddress parameter, which already explains it defaults to the configured wallet. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states that this is a read-only guidance tool for bridge history, not yet wired in the release, and directs the user to a dashboard. It distinguishes itself from sibling bridge tools by focusing on history and explicitly noting it returns a pointer rather than actual history data.

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 usage guidance: until session-binding lands, point the user to the dashboard link and specific tab. It also references the live q402_bridge_send tool for the same follow-up context, helping an agent understand when to use this stub versus expecting real data.

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