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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, indicating a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: it returns an immediate funding URL and states that new intakes enter house review only after funding settles. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the post‑submission flow. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and endpoint, and the second packs essential behavioral notes (funding URL, review timing, board status). Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 12 parameters, a nested verification object, and no output schema, the description provides critical behavioral context: the return includes a funding URL, and the review process is deferred until funding settles. It does not explain how to interpret the funding URL or what the approval workflow entails in detail, but the schema fully documents parameters and annotations handle safety hints. This is reasonably complete given the available structured metadata.

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 100%—every parameter has a descriptive comment (e.g., vendor_identity: 'Your public Frantic username', price_cents: 'Worker price in USD cents'). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall 'private vendor bounty intake' context. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 specific verb ('Submit') and a specific resource ('private vendor bounty intake') along with the endpoint (POST /v1/vendor-postings). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like claim_bounty, fund_bounty, or get_bounty, which have distinct purposes. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for creating a private vendor bounty and notes that it stays off the public board until approval, providing context about the workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, such as 'use fund_bounty after posting' or 'use read_board for public listings.' It gives clear context but no exclusions, aligning with a score of 4.

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