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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that calls default to a safe read-only preview, that committing needs a preview hash plus explicit consent, and — importantly — that amounts are in cents and that no payment order is created and no money moves. What it omits is the post-commit behavior (that a task becomes visible in the ecosystem, whether notifications are sent) and any permission or rate-limit requirements.

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?

Very dense and front-loads the preview default, with every clause carrying information. However, the terse Chinese shorthand (同参+previewHash) compresses the commit contract at the cost of readability, and the opening clause describes a mode rather than saying what the tool is.

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 12-parameter, 5-required creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical two-phase safety contract, the unit convention, and the no-payment guarantee. Gaps remain: no explanation of the preview stage's expected return (from which previewHash is obtained), no mention of idempotencyKey semantics, and no statement of the actual side effect of publishing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most key fields: it maps 全文→detail, 类别→kind, 完成标准→successCriteria, 报酬→rewardCents with the crucial unit note 金额分为单位, 期限→dueAt, plus the preview/previewHash/consent control trio. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, but leaves idempotencyKey and organizationId unexplained and never says where the previewHash value comes from.

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 never plainly states that it publishes/creates an ecosystem bounty task; it only describes the two-phase preview-then-submit mechanism. An agent must infer the purpose from the name/title plus the enumerated fields (全文/类别/完成标准/报酬/范围/期限). It does clearly distinguish the read-only preview mode from the committing mode, but gives no sibling differentiation against publish_network_bounty, manage_ecosystem_task, or create_organization_task.

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 states that the default call is a read-only preview and that the real submission requires the same parameters plus previewHash, consent=true and preview=false, which is actionable when-to-use guidance. It also implies when-not-to-commit by requiring the user to confirm the listed fields first. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating what to do if the preview is rejected.

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