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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it self-declares 'Read only' and discloses a meaningful information gap ('the poster is not shown'), preventing an agent from hunting for a field that isn't returned. It doesn't discuss ordering or what happens when the list is empty, but the safety profile is clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents in the first sentence; the mechanic explanation and the write-alternative follow. The parentheticals are dense but every clause carries a fact an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the aggregate values. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only list ordering and empty-result behavior are unstated.

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%, and both parameters (n with range 1-50/default 20, includeClosed) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific resource (open bounties on rival crews) and enumerates the returned fields (prize in wei, expiry, crew id, minimum prize, allowed duration). The final line 'Post one with prepare_bounty_post' separates it from the write-side sibling, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the game mechanic that makes the data meaningful (a squad raiding that crew splits the prize) and routes posting to prepare_bounty_post. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the plain 'bounties' sibling, which is the one ambiguity left.

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