hackerone_program_bounty_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only hints at an access restriction. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, whether pagination or filtering applies, or what happens if the caller is not a program owner.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity sacrifices behavioral detail.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and full schema coverage, the description lacks return-value context, permission implications, and any relationship to sibling program tools. An agent would know what to pass but not what to expect back or how this differs from other program-related endpoints.

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 100%, and the schema already documents 'program' as 'Program handle or numeric id'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond naming the resource, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the necessary work.

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 noun phrase 'Program bounty table' names a specific resource, and the parenthetical 'program-owner API' narrows its audience. It is not a tautology and it is distinguishable in topic from siblings like program_balance or program_audit_log. However, there is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', so the exact operation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only a role-based context ('program-owner API') and does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as hackerone_get_program_details, hackerone_program_balance, or hackerone_list_programs. There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools.

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