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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the account-link prerequisite and that commitment amounts are only relevant for features still open. This clarifies the data scope without contradicting the 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the key prerequisite. Every phrase carries information; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool reports and what prerequisite must hold. It could go slightly further by describing the exact return shape, but the description is sufficient for an agent to know what this tool does and when to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully defines the input contract. The description adds useful context about what data is returned, compensating for the lack of an output schema. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets it.

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 identifies the resource (the linked account's standing bids on features) and the scope (each feature, plus ET10 commitment on still-open features). This distinguishes it from siblings like feature_bids, which presumably shows broader bid data, by explicitly restricting to the linked account's own 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?

The description provides clear context on when the tool is applicable: it returns only the linked account's own bids and requires the agent to be linked to a platform account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to route to it correctly.

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