log_data_gap

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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=true and a title; the description adds the important side effect (a seller-visible bounty listing is created) and the return shape (message_for_user string with bounty URL). It does not explain the destructiveHint or whether the gap log can be removed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and ending with the return value. No filler, though the bounty clause and return clause could be marginally tighter.

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 usefully covers the return string and the bounty side effect, and the input schema fully documents parameters. The only gap is the unexplained destructiveHint, which an agent might want clarified for a write operation.

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 all three parameters and the $25 default are already documented. The description only restates the conditional nature of suggested_price_usd, adding little beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Record an unmet data need on DataBazaar') plus the secondary effect (creates a bounty listing when a price is supplied). An agent can distinguish this from create_listing or suggest_listing because the trigger is a failed search/data need, not a deliberate listing action.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the schema says the query is one 'that returned no results,' but the description never says 'call this after a search returns nothing' or names alternatives. The conditional bounty behavior is described, but that is behavior, not when-to-use guidance.

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