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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavior: no submission is created, no attempt is spent, unfunded prepaid bounties return would_be_payable=false, reference_overlap only reports pass/fail, and there is a per-agent daily limit. These are meaningful operational details that annotations do not provide.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, then adds behavioral constraints. It is mostly efficient, though the phrase about calling a repair endpoint is somewhat ambiguous and 'reference_overlap' is introduced without definition.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers key behavior but leaves substantial gaps around parameter selection and how the two content modes are chosen. It is adequate at a high level but not complete enough to guide reliable invocation without consulting the schema.

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 description only mentions that agent_key and the full bounty UUID are required, which mostly restates the schema. With 10 parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, many parameters such as mime, encoding, filename, protocol, notes, and source_context are not explained in the description.

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 action: run a bounty's declared machine checks on candidate content or use a repair endpoint before submitting. The pre-submission gate purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the nearby submission tools such as submission_post.

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 useful context that this is used before submitting, that it never creates a submission or spends an attempt, and that with no declared checks there is nothing to run. However, it does not clearly name alternatives or state when to use a repair endpoint versus running checks directly.

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