get_my_bounties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are newest first, they carry status/reward/deadline, and the lookup defaults to the server wallet (required on a read-only server). No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with what is listed and how it is ordered, then the wallet-targeting rule. Every clause earns its place 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?

For a read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context (status, reward, deadline, newest first) and the default-target rule. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 role, limit and address are already fully documented with enum values, defaults and the address pattern. The description restates the posted/took-or-entered split but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (list) plus resource (bounties) and narrows the scope to bounties a wallet posted, took or entered, with returned fields (status, reward, deadline) and ordering. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_open_bounties (all open bounties) and get_bounty (single bounty).

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?

Tells the agent the default target (this server wallet) and the alternative path (pass address for another wallet), which is the key routing decision. It stops short of explicitly naming competing tools or stating when not to use this one, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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