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 so well: it discloses the 0.5% platform fee and who bears it, the off-platform beta settlement model, the payment_ref recording behavior, the poster_unresponsive flag after 7 unreviewed days, and the reachability prerequisite for paid bounties. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before committing to a write action.

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 long but dense, with every major sentence adding operational meaning: fee terms, posting requirements, categories, review flow, prohibitions, responsiveness, and beta settlement. The fee paragraph is front-loaded, which is defensible given its importance, though the BETA settlement note partially repeats the opening fee/settlement context.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical context: cost, settlement model, review workflow, prohibited tasks, and unresponsiveness consequences. It does not describe what post_bounty returns (e.g., a bounty id) or explain every optional parameter, but the 92% schema coverage fills most of those gaps.

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 already 92%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by defining each category (research, data, sourcing, price_discovery, other) and explaining the fee/reward relationship, while the schema handles most parameter-level detail. It does not elaborate on audience, settlement, notify_webhook, or review_fee_bp, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Post a bounty') and immediately scopes what that means: describe a task, state a USD reward, optionally set deadline and acceptance criteria. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming review_submission for the review step, and the category taxonomy further clarifies the kind of work this tool creates.

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 clear operational context: categories to choose from, prohibitions on personal-information, credential, and illegal tasks, a reachability requirement for bounties of $1.00+, and the consequence of leaving submissions unreviewed for 7 days. It does not explicitly contrast post_bounty with ask_question or answer_question, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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