scan_bounty

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (0-5 score) and character of the check ('Anti-scam'), but lacks operational details like error conditions, rate limits, or what specific legitimacy criteria are evaluated.

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?

Perfectly sized at one impactful sentence with zero waste. The em-dash structure front-loads the tool type ('Anti-scam scanner') immediately, followed by the specific action and output format.

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 simple single-parameter tool without output schema, the description is nearly complete by specifying the scoring range. Minor gaps remain regarding error handling for invalid repos, but the core functionality is adequately covered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('GitHub owner/repo'), the description doesn't need to add significant parameter semantics. It confirms the context ('GitHub repo') but doesn't expand on syntax or validation rules beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 specific verbs ('checks') and resources ('GitHub repo's bounty') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling 'find_bounties' by specifying its 'Anti-scam' nature and unique 0-5 scoring output format.

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?

While 'Anti-scam scanner' implies a verification use case, there is no explicit guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives like 'find_bounties' or 'check_prs', nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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