Get Frantic bounty

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the return format (snake_case public JSON) and that claim_window_minutes appears only when the poster supplied criteria.claim_window_minutes. It stops short of noting pagination/error behavior, which is a minor gap for a single-record read.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup keys, with no filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly convoluted in its trailing conditional clause, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description must shoulder return-value explanation, and it does name key returned fields and the conditional claim_window_minutes. Combined with full parameter documentation and complete annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents that it accepts a posting id or public bounty number. The description merely restates the same duality in prose, adding no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Read one public Frantic bounty') plus the two accepted identifier forms, which is enough to separate it from list-style siblings like read_board. It never names an alternative (e.g., get_posting) explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'one public bounty' implies single-item lookup rather than board listing, giving implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many read_* and get_* siblings.

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