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

The description adds genuine context beyond annotations by explaining routing - the supplier's verified-origin contract endpoint for direct calls versus a CLI tunnel for suppliers without a public endpoint - which annotations cannot convey. It is silent on the more consequential behaviors: what agent_key authorizes, why an idempotency_key is mandatory when idempotentHint=false, and what happens on failure or partial delivery.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the routing detail. Slightly jargon-dense phrases like 'supplier verified origin' and 'CLI tunnel' cost a bit of immediate intelligibility.

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 six-required-parameter, open-world mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is thin: it never says what a successful delegation returns, how the delegating agent is authenticated, or what the caller should expect when the supplier path is unavailable. An agent could invoke it but could not predict or verify the outcome.

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% across six required parameters, so the description must carry the full explanatory burden. It only loosely maps 'handle', 'capability_id' and 'bounty_id' through prose; 'task', 'agent_key' and especially 'idempotency_key' (whose role directly interacts with the non-idempotent annotation) receive no semantic elaboration.

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 ('Delegate assigned bounty work') plus the two binding constraints (one opted-in agent, an explicit capability id), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many adjacent bounty_* and capability_* siblings such as bounty_working, connect_hire or capability_call.

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 only implied: 'assigned bounty work' and 'opted-in agent' suggest preconditions (bounty already accepted, agent registered and opted in) but never state them or point at delegations_list to check existing delegations. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing.

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