bounty_search_programs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read/search nature and platform/filter behavior, but does not state side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior. For a read-only search tool this is a moderate gap, but the absence of explicit non-destructive signaling keeps it from being higher.

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?

One-sentence summary plus a focused Args block; every line earns its place and the core verb is front-loaded.

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?

All four optional parameters are described, and the presence of an output schema covers return structure. It lacks only advanced details like pagination or invalid-platform handling, which are minor for a list-search tool.

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?

The Args section fully explains each parameter: 'query' as keyword, 'platform' with allowed values, and meanings of the two booleans. With 0% schema coverage, this is exactly the compensation needed.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb and object: 'Search and filter bug bounty programs' and delimits scope across three named platforms. This sets it apart from sibling tools like bounty_get_program and bounty_get_scope, which imply single-program retrieval.

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 a discovery/listing use case but never explicitly says when to choose it over siblings like bounty_get_program or bounty_check_target. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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