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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that only the bidder's open bid is affected, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, authorization requirements, or what happens to associated deals/matches. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 five words, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately readable.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema is well covered, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral consequences unstated. It is minimally sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool, but an agent would benefit from knowing what changes occur and any constraints beyond 'open bid.'

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 input schema already covers both parameters fully, including format hints like 'bid_...' and 'mx_...', so the description does not need to add param-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('withdraws') and resource ('bid'), plus the actor ('Bidder') and state ('open bid'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like accept_bid, reject_bid, and place_bid without needing external context.

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?

It clearly implies when to use it: when a bidder wants to retract their own open bid. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it lacks the stronger routing guidance seen in top-tier descriptions, but the context is still clear.

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