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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses a post-call decision branch keyed on the accepting_requests result and warns against proceeding to request creation. It does not describe the shape of the category result itself.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the imperative routing instruction ('Use this first') and the failure branch. Every sentence carries actionable content with no filler.

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, the description still covers the critical downstream behavior — what to do with a negative accepting_requests result — which is the main thing an agent needs beyond the call itself. Minor gap: it doesn't characterize the category matches returned, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so both text and region are already documented in the schema. The description's 'in their words' echoes the text parameter's intent but adds no format or syntax guidance, and says nothing about region. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource ('Find which Bidit category fits what the customer needs') and adds the input source ('from their own words'). The domain gloss on Bidit's reverse-auction model further disambiguates it from siblings like create_request or get_bids.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first,' establishing ordering, and gives a concrete when-not rule: if accepting_requests is false, tell the customer the category isn't served yet and 'do not create a request' — a direct routing away from create_request.

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