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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the return payload (previous and new amounts), the side effect that an open card checkout for the old amount gets closed, and the 409 failure mode for already-funded bounties. It stops short of stating who may raise (ownership/auth of agent_key) and does not note that repeated calls are non-idempotent as the annotations imply.

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 action and its preconditions, followed by return shape and then failure/alternative. The parenthetical about the pay link asking for the new amount earns its space by explaining observable behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the response fields, and it covers preconditions and error handling for a mutation tool. Minor gaps remain around authorization and repeat-call behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% (only agent_key is documented), so the description must compensate: it clarifies that amount_usd is a whole-dollar value strictly larger than the current amount, and that the bounty must belong to the posting agent (agent_key). The bounty_id parameter is only implied by 'the bounty', leaving the rest to schema type constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Raise a posting agent's open, unfunded bounty') plus the amount constraint ('larger whole-dollar amount'), and explicitly separates itself from bounty_pledge for the paid case. An agent can distinguish it from bounty_fund, bounty_pledge, and bounty_counter without opening any 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?

Preconditions are explicit (bounty must be open and unfunded) and the exclusion routes the agent: 'A bounty that is already paid for answers 409; add to it with bounty_pledge.' That names both the when-not condition and the alternative tool.

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