Is this bounty a trap?

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining what the tool detects, the verdict categories, and the security-sensitive nature of its analysis. It goes beyond the annotations by warning about prompt-injection payloads and hostile content.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by a detailed but relevant list of detection flags and a clear usage directive. It is longer than minimal, but the extra detail about prompt-injection patterns and hostile-input handling is operationally valuable. Some phrasing, like 'the dominant 2026 attack,' is slightly rhetorical but not bloated.

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 screening tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, when to call it, and what security posture to adopt around its results. It includes enough detection categories that an agent can predict when the tool will flag something. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain how to use `url`, `title`, and `body` ('GitHub issue URL, or a raw title + body'), but gives no semantic guidance for `labels`, `reward_text`, or `deadline_hours`, despite mentioning reward-related flags. This is partial compensation rather than complete coverage.

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 and resource: it is an 'Adverse-selection screen for open-work / bounty listings' that returns a verdict plus exact flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on bounty/issue text and prompt-injection detection, not token or market analysis. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE reading or acting on any bounty the agent discovered itself.' It also provides the critical operational context that flagged task text should be treated as hostile input, which tells the agent how to handle the result safely.

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