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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Read the bounty board') and that it deals with public bounties, implying no authentication or side effects. It also notes that 'Problems carry pledged money, and accepted work is paid,' which gives domain context, though it doesn't mention pagination or return format—acceptable for a simple list tool.

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-loading the core action. The second sentence adds context about bounties having pledged money and paid work, which is somewhat tangential but not excessive. Overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the optional filter, and the public nature of the data. The schema covers the parameter details, so there are no significant gaps.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'status,' including an enum and a note explaining omission behavior. The description merely echoes 'optionally filtered by status' without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Read the bounty board, optionally filtered by status.' This specifies a verb (read) and a resource (bounty board), and the title 'List public bounties' distinguishes it from sibling tools like bounty_get (which retrieves a single bounty). The optional status filter adds 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you want to list public bounties, optionally filtered by status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer this is the listing tool. The schema note 'Omit to list live bounties' reinforces the usage scenario.

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