List BI.ZONE reports

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavioral constraint: the configured account's own reports are never returned. It also indicates the returned content at a high level (who reported, program, date, payout), though it does not explicitly state read-only status, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then filters, use case, and the important exclusion. Each sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

Given nine fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains scope, filters, intended use, returned content at a high level, and the self-report exclusion. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and explicit read-only semantics, though the schema covers limit and offset.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions filtering by program, researcher, price range, and date, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: browse bug bounty reports of other researchers. It clarifies the scope by saying reports of the configured account itself are never returned, which distinguishes it from account-oriented siblings like get_me and from single-report get_report.

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 gives a clear intended use case: studying what gets paid on a program, and mentions available filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_report or program_stats, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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