find_bounties

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the 'scam filtering' behavior, which is a critical value-add. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format disclosure that would be expected for a zero-annotation search tool.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Search GitHub...'), followed immediately by the key differentiator ('Filters out known scams'). No redundant phrases or filler text.

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?

Good completion for a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage. The description establishes domain (GitHub) and quality guarantees (scam filtering). Minor gap: missing description of return values since no output schema exists (what fields returned? how many results?).

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% (both parameters fully documented in schema), establishing baseline 3. The description adds domain context ('GitHub') which helps interpret the query parameter, but does not elaborate on query syntax, validation rules, or the significance of the min_stars threshold beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Excellent clarity: 'Search GitHub for real, paying bounty opportunities' provides specific verb (search), specific resource (GitHub bounties), and quality qualifier (real, paying). The 'Filters out known scams' clause distinguishes this from siblings like 'scan_bounty' by implying a curated/filtered search rather than a raw scan.

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 'Filters out known scams' implies usage context (use when seeking trustworthy opportunities), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like 'scan_bounty' or 'check_prs'. No explicit alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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