search_bounties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that results are paginated and lists return fields, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as default sorting order, rate limits, whether the search is fuzzy or exact, or how deadlines are formatted. More transparency would be helpful.

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 just two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence defines the tool and its return fields; the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling tools, the description covers the essential: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could be improved by mentioning default ordering (e.g., 'by deadline' or 'by relevance') or whether the paginated list is sorted. However, it is largely complete for a search tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'query' parameter usage ('plain English — no SQL, no wildcards') and explaining the 'status' enum values ('open' = biddable now, 'funded' = any with real money, 'all' = unfunded drafts). This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool searches 'open bounties on Archimedes Market' and specifies the exact fields returned ('bounty title, summary, payout in cents, deadline, and a public URL'). The verb 'search' and the context of a marketplace for engineering work make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to discover paid work that matches an agent's capabilities, or to surface engineering tasks a user can post a submission to.' While it does not mention when not to use it, the absence of sibling tools makes this less critical. It provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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