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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting that the result includes current status and operational routes, and it instructs the agent to check the status before proceeding. This adds context beyond the annotations but is minimal; it does not contradict annotations.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return content; the second delivers a critical usage directive. There is no redundant information, and every clause 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does, what it returns (status and operational routes), and a critical precondition (check status before work). While it does not detail the format of 'operational routes', this is not necessary for invoking the tool correctly. It is complete enough for an agent to use it appropriately.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter task_id, including its source ('from list_open_bounties') and an example. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 clear verb (Get), a specific resource (one AB5D bounty task), and the method of identification (by identifier). It also mentions what is returned (current status and operational routes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_bounties (listing vs. getting a single item) and other get tools for different resources (e.g., get_artist_otdh, get_dossier).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve a specific bounty and check its status. The critical usage rule 'Do not begin work unless the returned status is open' sets a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 because it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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