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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation (search/filter), the returned bounty details, and the notable 360LOCK behavior: 'tokens stay yours after the lock period.' This is useful, non-obvious behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns matching bounties.'

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, then return details and lock behavior. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs: filters and return fields. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or behavior when no filters are provided, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward filtered search 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the keyword, category, and min/max amount parameters and enumerates category values, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema and omits the repeatable_only parameter entirely. The schema already documents all five parameters adequately.

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: 'Search and filter available NCTR bounties.' It also lists the exact filters and return fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which target tier requirements, promotions, rates, impact engines, and onboarding links.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a user needs to search or filter NCTR bounties by category, amount, or keyword. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the concrete filter examples make the intended usage evident.

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