PublicSafetyBid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic purpose—it does not describe the output format, how the 'vendor' parameter affects results, or any edge-case behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin to provide a complete understanding. It does not clarify the relationship between input text and vendor, what 'clarification questions' look like, or how the tool should be invoked beyond a generic trigger.

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 0%, and the description only loosely hints that 'text' is the bid ('from a bid'). There is no explanation for the 'vendor' parameter or how 'text' is used. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'Use this when a user wants vendor clarification questions from a bid,' which clearly identifies the tool's resource (a bid) and outcome (vendor clarification questions). The verb is implied ('build' from the title) and it is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on requirements, no-bid reasons, and fit scoring.

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 gives a clear use case: 'when a user wants vendor clarification questions from a bid.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., input constraints, error conditions, or output semantics). It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying usage. It is concise but not information-dense like a benchmark, missing opportunities to pack parameter hints or alternative tool references.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations reduces the need for extensive description. However, the undefined parameters, especially 'vendor', create a gap that makes the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'text' or 'vendor' parameters. The agent must infer meaning from the tool name, leaving ambiguity (e.g., what exactly 'vendor' filters or how it affects extraction). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool extracts bid requirements, with a specific domain (public-safety) and a distinct action. It differentiates from sibling tools like build_vendor_questions and score_bid_fit, which serve different purposes.

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 provides an explicit usage condition ('Use this when a user wants...'), making the context clear. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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

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

The description adds the behavioral nuance that the tool produces 'likely reasons' (probabilistic, not definitive), which goes beyond what annotations declare. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, no further behavioral details are provided, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose and usage without any fluff.

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 has a simple structure with annotations and an output schema, and the description gives clear purpose and usage. However, the lack of parameter semantics means the agent may not know exactly what inputs are expected, representing a significant gap.

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 has two parameters (text, vendor) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides zero information about their meaning or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer what 'text' and 'vendor' represent.

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 the specific verb 'generate' with the resource 'no bid reason', and clarifies scope as 'likely reasons a solicitation may be a weak fit or no-bid.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'score_bid_fit' and 'build_vendor_questions'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a user wants likely reasons a solicitation may be a weak fit or no-bid.' While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, the clear 'when' clause provides solid usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is well-established. The description adds the 'checklist-style' output format but discloses no other behavioral details (e.g., input handling, errors, limits), which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the usage directive, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and structurally optimal for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

While the output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, the description fails to explain the input parameters, making it difficult for an agent to construct valid calls. For a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, more context is needed to be complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does not mention 'text' or 'vendor' at all, leaving their meaning completely unspecified. The vague 'bid' reference doesn't compensate for the lack of explicit parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the tool provides a checklist-style fit score for public-safety bids. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'checklist-style' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on building questions, extracting requirements, or generating no-bid reasons.

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 explicitly begins with 'Use this when...' and provides a clear condition for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it doesn't fully meet the bar for explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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