bounty_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: no authentication required, a server-computed 'status' field derived from timestamps, the max page size of 100, and that the default view silently excludes terminal states. It omits return-field inventory, sort order, and any error/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 endpoint, then a scannable filter list with defaults inline. Mostly every line earns its place; the trailing earning_opportunities tip and repeated limit max are minor redundancy.

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 list endpoint with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers auth, filters, defaults, pagination caps, and the derived status field — enough to call it correctly. What each record actually contains beyond 'status' is left unstated, which is the one realistic 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the status enum and the limit maximum. The description's filter bullets largely restate the schema, adding only the gloss that "active" means non-terminal states — useful but marginal, so 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 + resource ("List bounties on aibtc.com/api/bounties") and enumerates the filter surface, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (bounty_get for a single bounty, bounty_my_posted / bounty_my_submissions for self-scoped lists), so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 through filter semantics and the important default (status defaults to "active", i.e. non-terminal states only), which is real guidance for calling it correctly. However, it never says when to prefer this over bounty_my_posted, bounty_my_submissions, bounty_get, or taskmarket_search, and the earning_opportunities tip is an adjacent upsell rather than an alternative for the same task.

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