Search all bounty sources

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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: discloses concurrent fan-out, URL-based dedupe, sort precedence (amount descending, unknown amounts last, then newest first), and degraded-mode behavior with a warning when one source fails. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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 sentences, no filler. Merge/sort semantics come first, failure handling second — both front-loaded and each clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return semantics and does well on ordering and partial results, but it doesn't characterize the result shape (what identifies a bounty, how amounts/currency are represented, whether the warning is a field or a separate channel).

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 100%, so limit, sources, keywords, language and min_amount_usd are already documented, including the unknown-amount exclusion rule. The description adds only the sort ordering that interacts with amount, which is baseline-appropriate but not compensating value.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (bounties) plus the exact scope: GitHub and Opire concurrently, merged and sorted. The aggregation framing distinguishes it from the per-source siblings search_github_bounties and search_opire_rewards without needing to 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?

Implied clearly by title and body: use this for a combined multi-source search. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a single-source sibling (e.g., source-specific keywords or pagination), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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