get_org_bounties

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'open bounties' but omits details like pagination, ordering, error handling, or rate limits. The default status is implied but not explicitly stated in the description (only in schema).

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 succinct sentences that front-load the core purpose and provide a practical usage example. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and parameter defaults, but lacks details on output format (no schema) and error conditions. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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% (all parameters documented). The description adds contextual value: explains 'org' as a slug from Algora URL and gives default values for status and limit, enhancing agent understanding.

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 it retrieves open bounties for a specific organization, using examples like 'cal.com' or 'supabase'. It differentiates from siblings by specifying organization-scoped retrieval, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

Guidance is provided: 'Use this to check if a known project has active bounties'. However, it does not specify when not to use or suggest alternative tools like search_bounties for fuzzy queries.

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