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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: privacy ('Privately'), non-committal nature ('never creates a submission or spends an attempt'). However, it doesn't describe the return format, error behavior, or what the 'machine checks' actually validate, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and key non-destructive properties. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations, low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (pass/fail, errors), how parameters map to behavior, auth requirements (agent_key), or how to handle encodings and size limits. A more complete description is needed for an agent to invoke effectively.

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 description coverage is only 14%, and the description does not compensate. None of the 7 parameters (bounty_id, agent_key, filename, content, encoding, mime, source_context) are explained in the description. The only hint is that the tool runs checks on an uploaded file, but no explicit mapping to params.

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 action: 'Privately run the poster's declared machine checks.' It also distinguishes itself from submission tools by noting it 'never creates a submission or spends an attempt,' aligning with the title 'Run a bounty gate before submitting.' Slight ambiguity in 'machine checks' but contextually clear within the bounty workflow.

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 title explicitly says 'before submitting,' providing clear timing guidance. The description reinforces that it is a safe pre-submission check by stating it does not create a submission or spend an attempt. This implies use when you want to validate without committing, though it doesn't name alternatives like submission_post explicitly.

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