List BI.ZONE bug bounty programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it lists concrete return fields (slug, name, report counts, payouts, scope size, max critical reward) and the downstream hand-off. It omits pagination behavior, auth requirements, and rate limits, but the read-only nature is inherent to 'List' and the main behavioral shape is conveyed.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and returned fields come first, followed by the actionable next step, so the important information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the key returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs. Given the tool is a simple read-only list with fully documented params, the only minor gap is pagination/return-shape detail.

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%, with every parameter (sort enum, limit, offset, search) documented in the schema itself including defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List and search bug bounty programs (companies)') and names the platform. It also enumerates the returned fields and names the sibling tools that consume the resulting slug, so an agent can tell it apart from get_program, program_stats, and search_scope without opening schemas.

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?

It tells the agent what to do *after* calling ('Use the returned `slug` with get_program / get_program_scope / list_reports'), which is useful downstream routing. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like program_stats or search_scope, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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