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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses return contents (name, amount, lock period, requirements) and adds the 360LOCK behavioral detail ('tokens stay yours after the lock period'). However, it doesn't mention potential quirks like result limits or ordering, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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, then filter criteria, then return behavior and a noteworthy lock detail. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filter dimensions, return fields, and a distinctive feature (360LOCK). It doesn't explain filter combinability or result ordering, but for a search tool this is reasonably 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 100%, with each parameter individually described. The description adds grouping and context (e.g., listing category enum values) but doesn't provide new semantic information beyond what the schema already conveys, consistent with the baseline 3.

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 states the tool's function: 'Search and filter available NCTR bounties' with specific filter dimensions (category, amount, keyword). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_active_promotions, so it falls short of a 5, but the resource and verb are specific enough to distinguish it.

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 (search bounties when you need filtering) and lists filter options, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. This is implied usage rather than clear exclusions.

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