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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it says the operation prepares an unsigned transaction, explains the prize flow to the raiding squad, the expiry refund behavior, and that the 5% fee stays in the pool. It also discloses important constraints: no self-targeting, max 3 open bounties, and per-call prize limits.

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 dense but front-loaded: it first says what the tool does, then the prerequisite, then the prize/refund mechanics, then constraints. Every clause adds operational value, and there is no 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation-preparation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavior: unsigned preparation, fee approval prerequisite, prize escrow/refund mechanics, self-targeting exclusion, and open-bounty/prize/day caps. Nothing critical needed to call it correctly appears missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by stating that the prize must be above the minimum and capped at 1,000,000 ZENI, that days must be 1 to 7, and that the crew must be a rival crew, not your own.

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 states a specific verb and resource: prepare an unsigned bounty on a rival crew. It clearly distinguishes this from viewing bounties or claiming/completing a bounty, and adds the scoping detail that the target must be a rival crew.

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 usage context and prerequisites: approve the prize plus the 5% fee first, do not target your own crew, at most 3 open bounties, prize above minimum, 1–7 days, and max 1,000,000 ZENI. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to inspect existing bounties or prepare a refund, so it falls short of full when-to-use versus when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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