bounty_get

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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it states no authentication is required and explains the returned bounty record, first-page submissions, conditional winner block, and conditional payment hint. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but it provides strong behavioral context for a read tool.

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 and uses a clear bullet structure for return details. The closing earning_opportunities tip is somewhat extraneous to calling bounty_get, but the main content is efficient.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the key returned fields and conditional blocks, and it notes that no authentication is required. It is nearly complete, but it could clarify pagination for the 'first page of submissions' or what happens when the bounty is not found.

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%, and the only parameter, bounty_id, is already described in the schema as 'Bounty ID'. The description adds no additional meaning such as ID format or where to obtain the bounty ID, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action and resource: get full detail for a single bounty. The word 'single' helps distinguish it from bounty_list and bounty_submissions, though it does not explicitly name those sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single bounty' detail, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus bounty_list, bounty_submissions, or other bounty tools. The earning_opportunities tip is promotional and does not guide selection among alternatives.

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