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

Annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds the behavioral constraint that only the user's own submissions ('you made') can be queried, and reveals specific output aspects like gate verdict and payout state.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key fields, with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential return fields (tier, gate verdict, payout state) and the ownership constraint, which is sufficient given no output schema.

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 100%—bounty_id is already described as 'The bnty_… id returned by bounty_submit'. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Status of a bounty submission you made: tier, gate verdict (mcpt_p / dsr), and payout state' clearly identifies the tool as fetching the status of a specific bounty submission. It names specific output fields and distinguishes it from bounty_submit (which creates submissions) and other tools.

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 this tool is used after bounty_submit to get the status, especially since the schema references 'returned by bounty_submit'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other tools.

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