find_best_programs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. The description only lists filter inputs, lacking any behavioral context beyond the stated purpose.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and primary filters. It omits mention of the 'max_results' parameter, but this is acceptable as it is a limiter rather than a filter criterion. The description is front-loaded and to the point with no redundant information.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of program summaries). It does not describe the output format, order of results, or behavior when no matches are found. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for understanding the tool's full behavior and return value.

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% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply enumerating some filter criteria (e.g., 'open scope' maps to open_scope_only). It does not provide additional meaning such as examples or constraints that the schema lacks. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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's purpose: discovering and filtering active bug bounty programs. It identifies specific filtering criteria (bounty offers, fast payments, etc.) and uses an action verb 'Discover and filter', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_programs' (which likely lists all) and 'get_program_details' (which gets a specific program).

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 does not provide usage guidelines, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_programs' or 'get_program_details'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or explicit context. The implied usage is for discovering programs matching criteria, but without differentiation from sibling tools.

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