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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: payout is in ANANSI (ERC-20 on Base) from the Haven bounty wallet, sent after review, and that no API key is required. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which for a listing tool is a moderate gap.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then disambiguation, then return fields and auth. Every sentence carries information, though the density of parenthetical detail makes it slightly dense rather than maximally crisp.

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 steps in to describe the returned fields (amount per accepted submission, open slots, payout status), and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent knows what it gets. Missing only pagination/ordering behavior for a listing endpoint.

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 50%: the 'status' enum is self-documenting, but 'tag' has a useless schema description ('tag') and the prose never explains what it filters by. The phrase 'open slots and payout status' describes output fields, not the status filter, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for a partially covered two-parameter schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List... house-posted bounties') and immediately names the sibling it is not ('Separate from the credit job board (list_jobs) and from Haven-only credits'). An agent can distinguish it from list_jobs, get_bounty and bounty_status without opening any 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?

Explicitly distinguishes this tool from list_jobs and Haven-only credits, which is clear routing context. However, it does not say when to prefer this over the related bounty siblings (get_bounty, bounty_status, claim_bounty), leaving some inference to the agent.

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