Bounty status and submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses cost ('Free'), the complete status lifecycle (paid, open, accepting, accepted, cancelled, expired_refunded, failed), the 15-minute validity of preview video URLs, and that full capture/3D model links are only exposed post-accept. Gaps remain around authorization (it implies ownership but doesn't state it as a requirement) and pagination/limits on the submissions list.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the free/summary fact and the core resource, then a conditional detail about post-accept links. The parenthetical status enumeration is dense but earns its place by defining the return vocabulary; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description sensibly describes the return payload itself: status values, on-chain id, board link, submissions with preview URLs and quality status, plus the post-accept additions. What is missing is pagination/limits for submissions and any error behavior for an invalid or unauthorized bounty_id.

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 bounty_id has no schema description. The description only indirectly clarifies the parameter by scoping it to 'a bounty you posted,' which implies the id must belong to the caller but gives no format or source (e.g., returned by vangrid_post_bounty). This partially compensates for the coverage gap without fully closing it.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns the status of a bounty the caller posted, along with its on-chain id, board link, and submissions received. The read-only status framing is distinguishable from mutating siblings like vangrid_post_bounty, vangrid_accept_submission, and vangrid_cancel_bounty, though none are named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'a bounty you posted' scopes it to your own bounties, and the note that full capture/3D model links 'appear on the accepted submission' after accept tells the agent when extra data becomes available. There is no explicit when-to-use versus-alternatives guidance or stated prerequisites.

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