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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 'draft until the customer confirms by email' lifecycle state, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields listed compactly. No filler. Slightly list-heavy, but every item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so explicitly. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two inputs and rich read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only cross-tool routing is missing.

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% – both request_id and access_key are fully documented in the schema, including format examples and provenance from create_request. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Check a Bidit request') and enumerates the fields returned: status, offers, invited businesses, expiry, dashboard link. This is far more informative than the title. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_bids or get_request_form, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the alternatives. With siblings like get_bids, get_request_form, and update_request available, the agent gets no routing guidance. Usage is only implied by the return-field list.

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