bounty_my_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses 'No authentication required', a default result cap of 50, the default non-terminal filter, and that include_terminal triggers parallel fetches merged into one view. It leaves open what happens when more than 50 records exist (truncation vs. pagination), which is the main unresolved behavior for a list 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?

Front-loads what is returned and to whom, then layers defaults, alternatives, and auth requirements in short paragraphs. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities…' is unrelated cross-promotion that does not help an agent decide how to call this tool and dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 3-optional-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers query defaults, return fields (derived status, acceptedSubmissionId, paidTxid), and auth. Only the truncation/pagination semantics of the 50-record cap and the full record shape remain unspecified.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the btc_address default (current wallet's bc1q address), the status default of 'active' non-terminal, and the fact that include_terminal does parallel fetching and returns a combined view rather than simply relaxing a filter.

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 and resource plus scope: bounties a given BTC address has *submitted to*, defaulting to the wallet's bc1q address. That is implicitly distinct from bounty_list (all bounties) and bounty_submissions (submissions on a bounty), but it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Gives a clear next-step routing rule ('Use bounty_get on any row to see whether your specific submission was the one accepted') and explains the default view (50 active, non-terminal) versus include_terminal=true. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance against bounty_submissions or bounty_my_posted, which is the only gap.

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