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

Annotations already signal idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable context by confirming the draft is stored under the account controlling the Bearer agent key and by clarifying that no payment or publication occurs. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose every potential side effect (e.g., validation, storage limits).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information (what it does, what it doesn't do, and retry/next-step guidance). No wasted words.

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?

The description situates the tool within a workflow (draft before payment) and clarifies side-effect boundaries. With an output schema present, return value details are not required. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., authenticated agent) or validation behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for a draft-creation 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 schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate by explaining key parameters. However, it only mentions the idempotency key and 'identical input'; it provides no added meaning for major required parameters like title, bounty_amount_cents, review_window_days, or requested_deliverables. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') and clearly identifies the resource ('an AI-authored Research Bounty draft'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT do (create Checkout, charge a wallet, publish) and by referencing the separate funding step.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states the draft creation is a separate step from payment ('call fund_research_bounty separately when ready to pay') and gives clear retry instructions ('Repeat only with the same idempotency key and identical input'). This effectively tells when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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