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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real context beyond them: an auth requirement ('Pass required'), the returned fields (trust, label, every flag with its reason), and decision guidance ('Treat a suspected_honeypot label as do-not-work; a clean result is not a promise of payment') — the last being a key non-obvious behavioral caveat.

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?

Front-loaded with the blocking constraint ('Pass required'), then what it does, what it returns, usage routing, and interpretation caveat. Four dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it still summarizes them (trust, label, flags with reasons). Auth, scope, sibling exclusions, trigger conditions and result interpretation are all covered for what is a read-only scan tool.

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, but the description adds a clarifying constraint not evident from the schema: the pass token is effectively mandatory ('Pass required'), explaining why it sits in properties but not in the required array (it may arrive as the x-settled-pass header). The url parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema, so this is a modest but genuine addition.

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?

Specific verb+resource: fetches a bounty issue, repository or listing page and scans it for bait patterns, with the pattern categories enumerated (hidden HTML-comment instructions, prompt injection, credential requests, fork/star anomalies, dead/archived repos, reward anomalies). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling settled_check by scope ('Not for: x402 API endpoints'), so an agent can select correctly without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('about to work on an unfamiliar bounty or task, especially one not in settled_income_listings'), an explicit when-not ('x402 API endpoints'), and names the alternative tool (settled_check). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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