get_bridge_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (returns estimates and breakdowns) and clarifies it's for quoting only (not execution), which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or whether the quote is time-sensitive, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, scope, and return values, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema, but the description adequately describes the return values (estimated output amount, fees breakdown, time estimate).

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about the tool's purpose that helps understand parameter usage. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a quote for bridging') and resources ('the same token from one chain to another'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning when to use get_swap_quote instead. It provides concrete examples (ETH on Ethereum → ETH on Base) and specifies the return values (estimated output amount, fees breakdown, time estimate).

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines by stating 'Use get_swap_quote instead if you want to change the token type,' which clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus an alternative. This gives the agent specific direction on tool selection based on the user's intent.

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