List bounty submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping constraint ('for a specific bounty in your partner program') and says nothing about pagination defaults, filtering behavior, or result ordering.

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 tight sentence with zero filler and the scope stated up front. It is appropriately sized, though it errs toward being too sparse to be maximally helpful for a nine-parameter tool.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description has cover for its thinness. Still, for a tool with nine filter/sort/pagination parameters it omits any mention of the filtering capabilities or relationship to the approve/reject siblings, leaving gaps in workflow context.

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 one of the nine parameters is already documented (page, status, account, sort_by, group_id, partner_id, etc.). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 (list) and resource (bounty submissions) scoped to a specific bounty in the partner program, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like approve_bounty_submission, reject_bounty_submission, or list_program_applications.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the reviewer siblings (approve_bounty_submission, reject_bounty_submission) or when listing is preferable, leaving the agent to infer the workflow entirely.

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