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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and scope (own bounties), but does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. 'List' implies a safe read operation, yet more detail would be helpful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes value, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., a list of bounty objects). This is a notable gap since the description must compensate for the lack of structured output information.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the status filter, which the schema already documents. It does not harm but also does not significantly enrich 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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('bounties posted by the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from sibling `list_open_bounties`. It also mentions filtering by status, adding further clarity.

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 clearly implies the use case: listing bounties owned by the authenticated user, which sets it apart from tools like `list_open_bounties` or `get_bounty_detail`. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are stated.

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