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.