bounty_get_program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only conveys a read operation ('Retrieve'). It does not disclose behavior on invalid identifiers, platform unavailability, rate limits, or auth requirements. As a network-backed lookup tool, these gaps are significant.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, followed by compact arg documentation. The parameter notes earn their place given the 0% schema coverage, so the length is justified rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose and both parameters adequately. The remaining gaps are failure behavior (missing program, invalid identifier) and differentiation from the sibling bounty_get_scope, which a complete definition for a moderate-complexity lookup tool should address.

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 coverage is 0% and both params lack descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so well: it enumerates the valid platform values ('hackerone', 'yeswehack', 'intigriti') and explains the identifier format per platform (handle, slug, ID). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb (Retrieve) and a specific resource (full details, guidelines, policy, and scope for a program). However, it lists 'scope' among the retrieved items, which overlaps with the sibling tool bounty_get_scope and creates mild ambiguity about which tool to call for scope data.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the siblings (bounty_search_programs, bounty_get_scope, bounty_check_target). The arg documentation implies 'look up one program by its handle', but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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