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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them — that the newcomer bounty is always included as a standing item, so the result set may exceed what the filter implies — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how limit is applied.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the important inclusion detail (standing newcomer bounty) is front-loaded before the filter description. The first sentence is a fragment but remains clear.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the result-set composition but leaves pagination, ordering, and the limit parameter undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It restates the status enum values (already in the schema) but never explains limit, its default of 20, or the cap of 50 — the parameter most likely to be misused.

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 the specific resource (bounties on the town task board) and adds distinguishing scope: it includes the always-open newcomer bounty as a standing entry. The verb 'list' is only implied by the name, but the result set is unambiguous and separable from get_bounty.

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 status filter implies the main use case (browsing bounties by state), but nothing says when to prefer this over get_bounty or newcomer_bounty, nor when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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