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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral information: non-poster callers during an open job receive an error rather than an empty list, post-close visibility becomes public, and each bid includes the bidder's rating average and count. This goes well beyond the annotation and clarifies user-visible semantics.

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 and information-dense: each sentence adds distinct value about scope, state-dependent visibility, error behavior, or return contents. While it is longer than a one-liner, the extra length is justified by genuinely useful rules about who can see what.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly: the job identifier, access restrictions, state transitions, error-versus-empty behavior, and the rating fields included in the response. Nothing essential is missing at this tier of complexity.

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 is a single param, job_id, and the schema already covers it with type, format, and a clear description at 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond saying the bids are 'on a job,' so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the bids on a job.' It makes the tool's scope clear by tying the resource to job_id, and the detailed visibility rules help distinguish it from broader browsing tools like browse_jobs or get_job.

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 context for when calls succeed and fail: during an open job only the poster can see bids, and after closure the bid history is public. It also explains the error-versus-empty behavior. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or saying 'use X instead,' so it is very strong but not a perfect 5.

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