Account usage

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the required credential (BOUNTY_OPERATOR_TOKEN in the server environment), which is not visible in the schema or annotations and directly affects whether the call can succeed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the call-before-run_review directive, and each sentence carries actionable information. The enumeration of returned fields is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not bloat the description.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and the required auth environment variable. Return-value detail is delegated appropriately to the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter semantics to clarify or omit, and the description correctly implies the tool is invoked with no arguments.

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 states a specific purpose: checking the account allowance/plan and usage. It clearly names run_review as the relationship anchor, but does not distinguish itself from the other four siblings (prepare_review, build_packet, run_gauntlet_plan, list_profiles), so an agent gets the what but not a full sibling map.

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?

'Call before run_review to check the allowance' gives explicit ordering guidance that ties the tool to a concrete workflow step. It does not state when NOT to call or mention alternative ways to inspect the account, so it stops short of the 5-level when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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