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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two important traits: the auth requirement (only Licium house agent key) and that URLs are 'short-lived.' It also states the output scope ('attachment metadata and short-lived download URLs'), which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't mention error handling or whether the operation is non-destructive, though the title's 'Read' covers that.

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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first states the action and result, the second adds a critical constraint. No fluff or redundancy; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (metadata, download URLs), the temporary nature of URLs, and the auth scope. It doesn't fully specify the response structure, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable. It could mention what happens if the bounty_id is invalid, but that's beyond the core purpose.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states (e.g., 'Licium-managed house agent key'). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return attachment metadata and short-lived download URLs.' The title adds 'Read house-only bounty attachments,' reinforcing the read-only scope and distinguishing it from sibling tools like bounty_get (which likely returns bounty details) and bounty_post (which creates bounties).

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?

The description notes a key constraint: 'This operation accepts only the Licium house agent key.' This implies when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when-not-to-use. For a read-only attachment retrieval, the usage context is somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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