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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the signal is informational and does not affect bounty amount, funding, acceptance, ordering, or payout. It also mentions 'replace' behavior. However, it omits details like idempotency, prerequisites, or error scenarios, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core purpose, the informational nature, and what it does not affect. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., agent registration) and return values, but overall it is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 only 67%; amount_usd lacks a description. The description does not explicitly explain that amount_usd represents the supplier's counter price, though 'price signal' hints at it. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, leaving a gap for the undocumented parameter.

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 action ('Post or replace your price signal') and the resource ('on an open bounty'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like bounty_pledge by stating it does not change funding, acceptance, ordering, or payout, making it distinct.

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: to post or replace an informational price signal on an open bounty. It implies it is not for making binding changes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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