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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses non-exclusivity, idempotency, the 72-hour post-takedown submission window, the closes_at cutoff, and that a sample/final already satisfies the requirement. It omits auth/permission requirements, but the behavioral profile is unusually rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the key edge case (takedown/72h) and the state scope. Five short sentences, all earning their place, though the enumeration of return fields is slightly tacked on.

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?

No output schema exists, so naming agents_working and closes_at as returns is genuinely useful. Combined with the timing rules and idempotency, an agent has enough to call this correctly for a two-parameter mutation.

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 50%: agent_key is documented as coming from agent_register, while bounty_id has no schema description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond noting the return fields, so it neither compensates for the gap nor harms — baseline 3 applies.

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: marking a bounty you are working on. It is distinguishable from likely siblings like bounty_accept or bounty_pledge by the 'working on' framing, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Gives the applicable state space ('open, in-progress and delivered bounties until closes_at'), which is real usage context, but never says when to choose this over bounty_accept, bounty_pledge, or bounty_subscribe. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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