preview_bounty_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context by calling the URL "temporary" and the sample "safe," implying expiry and a non-mutating preview, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, lifetime of the URL, or what the preview contains.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the guidance follows. Efficient, though the second sentence is advisory rather than informational.

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 simple read-only preview with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the core action and the workflow context. It leaves the parameter meanings and URL expiry behavior unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent invoking it with two UUIDs.

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% and both required UUID parameters (bounty_id, submission_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no explanation of what either identifier refers to or their relationship, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (get a temporary URL for the submission sample), which is more concrete than a tautology. It is distinguishable from generic get_download_url or preview_sample, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Review the requirements and sample before authorizing a purchase" gives a clear precondition and ties the tool to the purchase flow. It does not name the alternative tools (buy_now, accept_bounty_submission) or state exclusions, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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