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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose concrete behavior: the return values (previous and new amounts), the 409 failure mode for already-paid bounties, and the whole-dollar constraint. It omits permissions/auth requirements beyond the agent_key param and any rate-limit or concurrency notes, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the error/alternative routing at the end. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return values, failure behavior, and the sibling alternative. Remaining gaps are minor: auth/permission expectations and the exact effect on the bounty's state.

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 only 33% (agent_key documented, bounty_id and amount_usd undocumented). The description adds some meaning for amount_usd ('larger whole-dollar amount', implying integer USD and increase-only) but says nothing about bounty_id semantics, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Raise ... bounty') with scope qualifiers ('open, unfunded') that distinguish it from siblings like bounty_pledge and bounty_post. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

States the applicable condition (open, unfunded bounty) and an explicit exclusion with redirect: a paid bounty answers 409 and should instead be handled with bounty_pledge. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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