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

Even though destructiveHint=true is already annotated, the description adds substantial context: bids are never collected or charged, can be raised but never lowered or withdrawn, require 100,000 ET10 plus coverage of all standing bids, and are refused with a reason otherwise. It also discloses that a bid does not guarantee the feature is built.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential behavioral or eligibility information. It front-loads the core purpose and then layers constraints logically, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed to call the tool correctly: valid bid targets, minimums, balance requirements, irreversibility, refusal behavior, and the human-approval constraint. There are no critical gaps for successful invocation.

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 100%, but the description still adds meaning: feature_id comes from feature_board or the cymetica.com/feature/<id> link, amount_et10 must be a whole number, the first bid must meet the minimum from feature_bidding_rules, and the amount must be human-approved. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "place or raise the linked account's ET10 bid on one open feature to move it up the board." It clearly differentiates this action from read-only sibling tools like feature_bids and feature_my_bids by establishing it as the mutating bid operation.

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 clear when-not conditions: bug reports and shipped or closed features take no bids, and bids below minimums are refused. It also references feature_bidding_rules for the minimum. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when to prefer them over this action.

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