gibwork_list_bounties

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses very little: no pagination story despite a default limit of 15 (suggesting results are silently truncated with no offset/cursor), no mention of whether results span both "live" and "ecosystem" pools by default, and no auth or rate-limit notes. Read-only behavior is only implied by the verb "List".

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and filter scope come first. Slightly compressed to the point where "live and ecosystem" reads as unexplained jargon.

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-required-parameter discovery tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are present but thin. The missing pieces are behavioral rather than per-parameter: result truncation/pagination and what a returned bounty record contains at a glance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the sort_by enum and defaults is already documented. The description merely echoes five of the six parameter names and adds no syntax, combination rules, or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("List ... Gibwork bounties on Solana") and names the filter axes, which is clearly distinct from the sibling get/verify/submit operations. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings to route the agent.

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 "with query filters" describes capability, not when to call this versus gibwork_get_bounty or the submission tools. No prerequisites, no sequencing (e.g. "browse first, then fetch details"), no when-not guidance.

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