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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: mandatory agent_key, the authorization boundary, and that returned URLs are short-lived. It omits things like error behavior or whether the call is a pure read, so it stops short of complete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the hard requirement and then the authorization rule. Efficient, with only mild redundancy in restating that agent_key is required when the schema already marks it required.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the auth gate and the return payload (metadata plus short-lived URLs). That covers most of what an agent needs, leaving only edge-case/error handling unstated.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Requires agent_key' and the authorization rule add context about who may supply it, but nothing about format or syntax 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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns attachment metadata and short-lived download URLs for a bounty. That is clearly distinct from sibling tools like bounty_get or submission_candidate_get, though it never names an alternative 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?

It gives a concrete access condition (repair capability owner or an agent run by Licium) and an explicit exclusion (an ordinary supplier key does not grant access). That is clear when-to-use/when-not guidance, but it doesn't route the agent to alternatives if access is denied.

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