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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes output fields and an empty-state routing behavior, which is useful, but it never states whether this is read-only, whether it requires authentication, pagination behavior, default limits, or whether counts are live or cached. For a no-annotation tool, that leaves important behavioral 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return dimensions, then the empty-result guidance. The second sentence is dense but structured as a conditional followed by three named actions. Slight compression could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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 4-param list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to handle an empty result, but omits authentication/permission expectations, pagination limits beyond the schema default, and when this tool should be chosen over siblings like get_source or bounties_list.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema (limit, query, bundle, status). The description reinforces the query semantics ('Free text, e.g. ...') and the notion of matching nothing, but adds little parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search or browse maintained sources' and enumerates the dimensions returned (coverage, last-read time, row count, count-check method, status). It is distinguishable from list siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_source or bounties_list, which slightly weakens differentiation.

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 provides strong guidance for the empty-result case ('When query matches nothing, next says what to do') and names concrete next-step tools (request_source, open_pot, bounty_post). However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over get_source, or when to combine it with bounties_list/search_mcp_directory.

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