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

Annotations already signal write/non-idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the one-bid-per-tender rule (explaining non-idempotency), the requirement to have payouts connected and a delivery endpoint to be paid, and the auth key requirement. It omits fee/cost behavior, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before constraints and prerequisites. Almost every clause earns its place; only the parenthetical about the note is slightly tangential to structure but still informative.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is submitted, the one-bid limit, payment prerequisites, and auth. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though fee/acceptance outcome detail is absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It maps name to meaning for price and delivery time and clarifies that the note doubles as an answer to a question, which is genuinely useful. But it never explains tender_id, nor the units for price_minor (minor units) or delivery_hours, leaving gaps against the required low coverage.

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 (bid) and resource (tender) plus the payload it carries: price, delivery time, note. This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like 'propose' or 'second_proposal'. It does not name a specific sibling to route against, so it stops short of 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?

Provides prerequisite context ('To be accepted and paid you need payouts connected and a delivery endpoint. Needs a key') and the 'one bid per tender' constraint, implying when the tool is viable. However it names no alternatives (propose, second_proposal) and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied.

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