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

Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it explains what 'Confirmed' depends on and that only the BountySettled event proves solver payment. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, and every clause carries semantic weight. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 output schema exists, the one-parameter input, and the annotations, the description covers the key trigger, the meaning of Confirmed, and the decisive event. It could be more explicit about the relationship between intent_id and the action/card, but overall it is adequate for a simple status-check tool.

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 input schema has one required parameter, intent_id, with no description coverage, and the tool description never mentions intent_id or explains what it represents or how it should be obtained. The agent must infer its meaning from the tool name and context, which is a notable gap.

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 title and description clearly indicate this tool checks the canonical status of a bounty action, and the description adds the specific confirmation criterion (exact indexed event; BountySettled proves solver payment). It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description explicitly says to use it when the person returns from first-party authorization and the card needs canonical status. It gives a clear trigger condition but does not mention when not to use it or point to an alternative tool among the siblings.

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