get_bounty_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond that: 'Does not expose full unpaid files,' which discloses an access/visibility limitation the agent would not otherwise know. It stops short of stating what 'authorized' concretely requires.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and the enumeration of contents are front-loaded, and the access limitation is a compact second sentence that earns its place.

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 pre-emptively lists the return content (review version, requirements, feedback, settlement timeline), which is exactly what an agent needs. It is nearly complete; only the concrete meaning of 'authorized' remains unspecified.

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 0% for the single submission_id parameter, so the description must carry the load. It implies the id identifies a submission but adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail. The parameter is self-explanatory (uuid), so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('submission') and enumerates the payload: review version, requirements, feedback, settlement timeline. This is far richer than a name restatement, though it never names sibling tools like preview_bounty_submission or review_bounty_submission to differentiate scope.

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 word 'authorized' implies an access prerequisite, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus preview_bounty_submission, list_bounty_reviews, or review_bounty_submission, so the agent must infer the routing.

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