bounty_check_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning that it evaluates wildcards, IP ranges, and path prefixes, which informs the agent of the tool's matching logic. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, such as how it handles invalid targets or whether it makes network calls.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and evaluation criteria in the second. The Args section is formatted clearly with parameter names, explanations, and examples. No redundant information is present.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a simple check tool: it defines the inputs and the matching behavior. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It could mention edge cases like multiple platforms or network requirements, but overall it covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the target parameter with examples and specifying allowed values for platform ('all', 'hackerone', 'yeswehack', 'intigriti'), which the schema does not provide. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the raw types.

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?

The description clearly states the tool verifies whether a target domain, IP, CIDR subnet, or URL is in-scope across bug bounty programs. It also mentions specific evaluation criteria (wildcards, IP ranges, path prefixes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bounty_get_scope that likely focus on a single program's 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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need to check a target against programs), but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as bounty_get_scope or bounty_search_programs. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist for different scenarios.

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