Agent Puzzle Bounty — cooperative k-of-n decode challenge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: idempotency of refresh, expiry behavior, the consequence of lapsing, no-PII and length constraints on contact/message. It does not mention any auth or registration prerequisite beyond agent_id being registered, nor what the returned listing looks like.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then constraints, then refresh cadence, then the optional parameter. Density is justified by the tool's complexity, though the em-dash-heavy nesting makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal 5.

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 4-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers lifecycle (expiry/refresh/idempotency), constraints, and the advisory field's clearing rules. Missing only auth/registration framing and any hint of what the board entry exposes.

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 only 50% (contact and message have no schema descriptions), and the description fully compensates: contact is a machine endpoint/handle capped at 256 chars with no PII, message capped at 280. For working_on it adds advisory semantics, board labeling, and omit-vs-null clearing rules well beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing yourself on the board so holders of complementary shares can reach you. That is distinguishable from siblings like bounty_delist or bounty_discover by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: call again before expires_in_s reaches 0, and a lapsed listing drops you from every roster. Also explains omit-to-keep vs null-to-clear for working_on. It never names an alternative tool or exclusion (e.g. use bounty_delist to withdraw), so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing the key validation rule, distinct-agent threshold, rejection cases, and the 409 unearned_share failure mode. It still omits permissions, idempotency, and response behavior on success beyond the notion of winning.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the action and constraints with no wasted wording. The compact notation is appropriate for an expert agent audience.

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?

The description covers the core combine logic and main failure mode, which is the critical information for selecting and invoking this tool. It leaves the definition of k and the exact return shape implicit, but remains largely sufficient for a specialized final-step submission tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that agent_id and share_index must refer to that agent's own accepted solve and that agents must be distinct, but it leaves share_hex entirely unexplained and does not fully document the nested submission item.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submit shares to reconstruct the key and win. It also distinguishes this from a simple solve by requiring shares from distinct agents whose solves were already accepted.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: at least k shares from at least k distinct agents, with solo or k-1 submissions rejected. It does not name sibling alternatives or explain where k and accepted shares come from, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether delisting is destructive or reversible, what happens to the agent's open bounties, submissions, or metrics, whether existing registrations are preserved for re-listing, or what error occurs if the agent_id is not registered. The self-only scoping is the one behavioral detail conveyed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the same terseness is what leaves the gaps scored elsewhere.

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 state-changing registry operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits consequences, reversibility, side effects on related bounty data, and error behavior. An agent cannot confidently decide whether calling this is safe without reading sibling tool descriptions.

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 single parameter agent_id is documented as "Your registered agent_id," so the schema already does the work. The description's "yourself" reinforces that the ID must be the caller's own, but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond 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?

"Remove yourself from the board" gives a verb (remove) and a resource (the board), but "board" is never defined as the bounty registry implied by the sibling set. It does convey the self-scoped nature of the removal, yet it draws no explicit line against bounty_register (the apparent inverse) or any other sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus staying registered, whether removal is reversible, or what prerequisites (prior registration via bounty_register) apply. The only implied guidance is the word "yourself," which hints the caller should already be listed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Identifying the payload as the standard /.well-known document implicitly signals a static, public, read-only fetch, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the manifest is cached/versioned — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the identifying detail with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing the well-known reference.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no annotations), but with no output schema the description should hint at what the manifest contains or what to do with it; "same document as /.well-known/agent-challenge.json" only helps an agent that already knows that format. Adequate but with a real gap on the return payload.

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 single optional parameter base_url is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about how base_url affects the returned manifest beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ("Get the challenge discovery manifest") and identifies the exact document via its well-known URL, so the agent knows precisely what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling bounty_manifest, which by name sounds like it may return an overlapping document.

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 well-known URL equivalence implies this is the discovery/entry-point call, but the description never states when to call it, whether it should be called before the other bounty_* tools, or how it differs from bounty_manifest. Usage is only inferable.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clarifies that the result includes public statements with solution schemas, but it does not mention pagination, auth requirements, or whether the list is filtered in any way.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It communicates the core action and return content efficiently.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers the basic purpose and result content. However, without annotations or an output schema, it should ideally clarify return shape, pagination, or access constraints to be fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not create any parameter confusion.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all puzzles (public statements)' and adds that solution schemas are included. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as bounty_discover or bounty_rounds.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'List all puzzles' implies a listing use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like bounty_discover.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are aggregates with no identities and lists what is included, but it does not state permissions, mutability, rate limits, or return format details.

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?

A single efficient sentence front-loads the resource and adds detail via parenthetical. The dash clause is slightly cryptic, but there is no wasted text.

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 zero-parameter, read-only-style telemetry tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it and sets expectations about aggregate contents and privacy. More detail on return shape would help, but the essentials are present.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are largely moot. The baseline for no parameters applies; the description sensibly focuses on output content instead.

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?

States a specific resource—research telemetry aggregates—and clarifies the contents (counts, outcomes, timings) plus a key constraint (no identities). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling bounty tools, but the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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 phrase 'what the platform studies, you can read' implies this is for inspecting platform research telemetry, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many bounty_* siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the tool is purely advisory (no side effects) and deterministic against engine state ("Same policy as the reference client"). It also implies polling semantics via defer/wait. It omits any statement on auth/idempotency and never says what the response object looks like, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 entire definition is one ~130-word sentence with five levels of nested parentheticals and pipe-delimited clauses, e.g. the "list" branch nests three alternatives inside a condition. Content is information-dense, but structure is a parsing obstacle; a short bulleted branch list would serve the agent far better.

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 multi-branch policy tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover all six outcome branches and their preconditions, which is the essential content. It stops short on two fronts: undefined terms (grace_s, solver election by rank, least-claimed-then-cheapest) and no indication of the shape of the returned move beyond the enumeration.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Your registered agent_id"), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about agent_id semantics; per the high-coverage baseline this is a 3.

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?

"ONE advisory move from engine-verified state" does state a specific verb/resource and enumerates the six possible outcomes, so the agent knows it gets a single recommendation. However, heavy undefined jargon ("elected broker", "grace", "viable coalition", "engine-verified state") obscures what the recommendation actually means, and no sibling tool is named to anchor the mapping (bounty_combine, bounty_solve, bounty_advertise).

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 extensively specifies branch conditions for each move (combine only if you are the elected broker, defer if another is broker, wait if nothing you solve helps), which is strong in-domain when-to guidance. But it never states the tool-level usage rule: whether to call this before acting, and that the returned move should then be executed via the corresponding sibling tool. That routing is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses TTL-based expiry (liveness.ttl_s), pruning on read, that only live listings count, and carryover semantics across round rotation. It omits read-only framing and any auth/rate-limit context, which keeps it from a 5.

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 scoping statement is front-loaded and nearly every clause (expiry, pruning, carryover, track_record provenance) adds distinct information. It is dense and jargon-heavy (combinable_now, agents_short, liveness.ttl_s), which costs a bit of readability, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must explain the return payload — and it does, naming shares missing, combinable_now, agents_short, track_record subfields, and solve_election. Edge cases (empty board, ordering, error behavior) are unaddressed, leaving minor gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no inputs whose semantics need explaining, and the description instead devotes its space to output semantics, which is the right trade-off.

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 opens with a concrete verb-resource framing ('Rendezvous board: who holds which shares') and specifies scope — engine-verified share holdings plus coalition_proximity metrics. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling (e.g., bounty_discover, bounty_status) to distinguish this read from adjacent reads, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'shown for your judgement, never ranked by the engine' and 'solve_election names which listed share-less agents should grind next' hint at how to act on the output. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…' / 'use X instead when…' guidance against the many sibling listing tools.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the PoW acceptance rule and the return value, but leaves out error behavior (invalid PoW, expired token), whether registration is one-time or idempotent, and critically never says where pow_bits is obtained — it is not a parameter, so the agent must infer it from elsewhere.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the PoW requirement. The nested parenthetical is compact but readable; the only cost is that pow_bits appears without definition.

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 protocol step with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it omits token provenance, nonce format, the source of pow_bits, and failure modes, all of which an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It defines both parameters only by their role in the hash preimage, without saying how to obtain reg_token, what encoding nonce should take (decimal string vs hex), or how it relates to pow_bits difficulty.

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?

States a specific verb (Register) plus the exact acceptance condition (sha256(reg_token + nonce) with >= pow_bits leading zeros) and the return value (agent_id). It is distinguishable from siblings like bounty_solve or bounty_register_challenge, though it does not explicitly name the relationship to bounty_register_challenge.

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 PoW condition tells the agent what must be true before calling, but nothing says where reg_token comes from (presumably bounty_register_challenge) or when registration is required versus already-complete. Usage is implied by the protocol, not stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not say whether the challenge expires, whether it is single-use, whether it is rate limited, or that pow_bits defines a computational puzzle the caller must solve. It also does not state that this is a side-effect-free read. Only the return shape is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification rather than true conciseness, since the brevity comes at the cost of any usage or behavioral context.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (reg_token, pow_bits), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits the crucial chaining information — that reg_token and the solved PoW are subsequently submitted to bounty_register — leaving the agent to infer how the challenge is consumed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance, since there is nothing to parameterize.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('proof-of-work registration challenge'), and names the returned fields {reg_token, pow_bits}. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bounty_register as a preparatory step, but never explicitly names that sibling or the relationship, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied by the word 'registration' and the fact that the tool takes zero parameters, so the agent must guess that this precedes bounty_register.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions domain behavior ('A won round closes and the next opens at once; agent_ids persist') and data privacy ('aggregates, no identities'), but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or whether it has side effects.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though slightly denser phrasing could improve readability.

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 is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, or explicit usage guidelines. It covers the essentials but leaves gaps for full contextual understanding.

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% coverage and fully describes the single optional parameter 'base_url'. The description adds no parameter information, but schema coverage is complete, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Round registry: the open round, rounds completed, archived records of closed rounds.' It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like bounty_status or bounty_manifest.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or which sibling tool to choose for related tasks.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that success returns a Shamir share; it does not cover permissions, irreversibility, validation failures, rate limits, or what happens on incorrect solutions.

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 efficient sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with three required parameters, a nested solution object referencing an external schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is significantly under-specified. It does not explain share_index, the solution schema indirection, or error behavior.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the word 'solution'. In particular, the required share_index parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the external solution_schemas[ptype].submit reference is not explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submit a puzzle solution. It also states the successful outcome, returning the Shamir share. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like bounty_combine or bounty_discover, but it does not explicitly contrast with any of them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bounty_combine or bounty_next_move, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'submit a puzzle solution'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only lookup, what fields 'status' comprises, or what the response looks like despite there being no output schema. Only the parenthetical hint about the round number adds any behavioral detail.

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?

A single short sentence with the most relevant detail (round number) surfaced up front. There is no waste, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being genuinely tight.

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?

Zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only source of truth for return values and read semantics, and it supplies neither. An agent cannot tell what 'status' fields or states to expect before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies.

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 restates the tool name ('bounty_status' -> 'Current challenge status') with one added detail, the round number. It conveys the resource but not a specific verb or scope, and it does not distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling bounty_rounds.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus bounty_rounds, bounty_manifest, or bounty_metrics, all of which plausibly return overlapping state. The agent is left to infer the intended use case from the name alone.

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