bounty_reality_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check current public GitHub evidence' communicates a read-only verification behavior and the data source, which is useful. It does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, or failure behavior, but the operation appears inherently non-destructive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and timing without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the return format does not need to be in the description. The description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of parameter semantics and explicit sibling differentiation, but the low complexity keeps this from being a serious deficiency.

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% and the description does not reference the required issue_url parameter at all. While the parameter name is suggestive, no format, example, or clarification is given about what URL should be supplied, especially since the description mentions both 'bounty or issue' but the parameter is only issue_url.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('current public GitHub evidence for a bounty or issue') along with the intended timing ('before contributing'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like repo_contribution_readiness and payment_preflight, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'before contributing' gives an explicit usage context, signaling when this tool is relevant. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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