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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the signal is informational and does not alter bounty amount, funding, acceptance, ordering, or payout. It also specifies the replacement behavior and a key amount constraint, though it omits permission requirements, rate limits, and any return or idempotency details.

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 tightly written sentences lead with the action, immediately qualify the signal's non-binding effect, and close with the key amount constraint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it posts, what it does not affect, and the main amount constraint. It is adequate for correct invocation, though it could say more about replacement limits or visibility after posting.

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 67%, so the description must add meaning for undocumented aspects. It adds crucial semantics for amount_usd — it is what the poster would receive and must be greater than the bounty's solver_payout_usd — beyond the schema's numeric min/max. The other two parameters are already covered by schema descriptions.

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 ('Post or replace') and resource ('price signal on an open or in-progress bounty'), making the tool's action clear. It distinguishes itself from amount-changing siblings by explicitly saying it does not change bounty amount, funding, acceptance, ordering, or payout, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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 an implied condition for use: the bounty must be open or in-progress, and amount_usd must exceed solver_payout_usd. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool against alternatives such as bounty_raise, bounty_pledge, or bounty_accept, leaving the agent to infer when this signal is preferable.

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