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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing an authorization gate and that returned URLs are short-lived — operational facts the annotations don't convey. It doesn't cover failure behavior when the key is insufficient or how many attachments come back, keeping it below 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?

Three compact sentences with no bloat; the access caveat is front-loaded. 'Requires agent_key' is mildly redundant with the schema's required list, but it reinforces the auth point rather than padding.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (metadata plus short-lived URLs) and who can call it. The remaining gap is error/denial behavior for unauthorized keys, which an agent calling with a supplier key would want to know.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'Requires agent_key' plus the caller-identity framing, which slightly reinforces the auth semantics but adds no format, length, or lookup 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: returning 'attachment metadata and short-lived download URLs' for a bounty. It is clearly distinct from bounty_get and the other bounty siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with bounty_get (the natural alternative for bounty data), so a 4 rather than 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?

It states who may call it ('repair capability owner or an agent run by Licium') and that 'an ordinary supplier key does not grant attachment access,' which is meaningful caller gating. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus bounty_get, nor what happens if the caller's key lacks the capability — guidance is implied through access conditions rather than explicit use/exclusion rules.

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