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 payment instructions are returned and agent_key is sent as a Bearer credential, but it does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether the pledge is binding, cancellable, or financially charged), which is important for a pledge 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the authentication note. No wasted words; 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a basic flow but omits details like pledge consequences, cancellation policy, or what happens after payment instructions are issued. It is adequate but has clear 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, close to the high threshold. The description adds the 'Bearer credential' detail connecting agent_key to authentication, but adds nothing for bounty_id or amount_usd beyond the schema. It provides marginal value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Record' with a direct object 'a pledge intent' and states the unique outcome 'receive its payment instructions', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like bounty_post or bounty_withdraw.

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?

It gives clear context for use (pledging to a bounty with bounty_id) and provides authentication guidance (email vs agent_key). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion criteria.

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