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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining that bids are never collected, nothing is charged/locked/paid, the account must verifiably hold at least 100,000 ET10 and the bid amount, and that bids are irreversible. This matches the destructiveHint=true annotation and gives the agent essential safety-relevant 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 compact yet information-dense: purpose is front-loaded, then currency/non-collection, then eligibility, then irreversibility, then human-approval caution. Every sentence earns its place and no wording is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description provides all necessary operational context: what the bid does, the currency, the constraints, the refusal condition, and the irreversible nature. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 schema already describes both parameters completely (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the ET10 currency, the minimum account balance requirement, and that the amount is a bid that can only be raised—this goes beyond the raw schema field descriptions.

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 concrete action: 'place or raise the bid on one of YOUR startup applications to move up the line.' This clearly identifies the resource (the user's startup applications), the verb (place/raise bid), and the goal, distinguishing it from generic bidding or line-viewing siblings.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after applying to a startup, to improve position in the line. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'YOUR startup applications' framing and the rule that bids can only be raised (never lowered or withdrawn) give sufficient practical guidance.

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