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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the delivery mechanism (contract endpoint on the supplier's verified origin, or CLI tunnel for suppliers without a public endpoint), which is real behavioral context, but omits auth requirements, whether delegation is reversible, and what idempotency_key protects against.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded, and the routing caveat appended second. Dense but no wasted clauses; slightly terse given the parameter load.

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?

A mutation tool with six required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema documentation leaves too much unexplained. Key gaps include idempotency behavior, agent_key's role, and the consequences of a successful delegation.

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% for six required parameters. The description hints at handle ('one opted-in agent'), capability_id ('explicit capability id'), and bounty_id/task ('bounty work'), but says nothing about idempotency_key or agent_key, the two parameters whose semantics an agent can least guess.

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 to one opted-in agent and an explicit capability id.' An agent can tell this is a delegation action distinct from bounty_accept or bounty_working, 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The phrases 'assigned bounty work' and 'opted-in agent' imply preconditions but never state them, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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