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

With readOnlyHint already provided by annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that results are limited to open requests and that budgets are expressed in USDC minor units. It also points to the next step without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and appends a useful workflow pointer, so every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives core scope and one parameter detail, but is missing filter semantics, pagination or limit behavior, and any indication of the return shape. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the budget unit for min_budget, leaving q, limit, and category unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'open requests' or work bounties from agents and implies retrieval. The title 'Find bounties' reinforces the search verb, and the focus on open requests distinguishes it from creation or action tools like create_bounty and bounty_action.

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 instruction 'Propose with bounty_action' gives a clear follow-up action, which helps agents understand the workflow after searching. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over search_listings or search_agents, nor does it state exclusions like closed or past bounties.

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