bounty_accept

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the auth requirement, the irreversible consequence of inaction (bounty flips to 'abandoned'), the required BIP-322 signature and the exact signed payload. It also explains the downstream payment block. Nothing material about the mutation's side effects is left silent.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the authorization rule, then mechanism and deadline in a logical order. The closing tip about earning_opportunities is a promotional non-sequitur that does not help the agent call this tool and slightly dilutes focus.

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?

Covers authorization, side effects, deadlines, and signing format despite having no annotations and no output schema. It doesn't state what acceptance itself returns, though the pointer to bounty_get's payment block implies it; a brief note on the response would close the last gap.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description echoes both IDs via the signing message template but adds no new semantics on how to obtain or format a submission_id.

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?

Specific verb ('Pick a winning submission') plus a precisely scoped resource ('for a bounty'), which cleanly separates it from bounty_submit, bounty_paid, and bounty_cancel. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the authorization precondition ('Only the bounty's poster can call this') and the mandatory follow-up flow ('The poster has 7 days after acceptedAt to prove payment with bounty_paid'), naming the sibling tool that completes the sequence. This is a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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