listBounties

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose, with no mention of read-only status, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, return format, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that presumably fetches data from relays.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence. While this makes it easy to scan, it lacks details that would make the sentence earn its place beyond a basic purpose statement. It is compact but under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters including an undocumented one, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain what the results look like, how relays affect the query, or any constraints like maximum limit. A simple enumeration tool would benefit from a mention of return format or filtering behavior.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 'limit' and 'minAmount' but not 'relays'. The description adds no parameter information at all, leaving 'relays' entirely unexplained. With 67% schema coverage and zero compensation from the description, there's a clear gap for the 'relays' parameter and no reinforcement of the covered ones.

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 'Discover open bounties' with a parenthetical explanation of what constitutes a bounty (issues with bounty labels or Lightning funding). This is a specific verb+resource with scope, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool listBountiesForIssue, which is issue-specific. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns a list or how results are ordered.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listBountiesForIssue or submitBounty. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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