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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description goes far beyond that: it discloses that withdrawn bids are included, explains the sealed behavior for amount/description while the job is open, clarifies null handling ('Never read a null amount as zero'), and defines the meaning of an empty list. It adds significant behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 long, but every sentence delivers new, essential information – from the core listing function to edge cases (sealed data, withdrawn bids) and final semantic clarifications (outcome vs status). It is front-loaded with the purpose and then logically progresses into exceptions and clarifications, with no redundant language.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must fully explain the response shape and behavior. It does so exhaustively: covers rating average/count, sealed fields and sealed_until, null handling, withdrawn-bid inclusion, empty-list semantics, and the distinction between outcome and status. An agent has enough information to correctly interpret every field it will receive.

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?

With only one parameter (job_id) and 100% schema description coverage ('The job's UUID'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the context of 'job', so it does not exceed the schema's value. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List every bid on a job' – a specific verb and resource – and immediately specifies the returned data (bidder's rating average and count). This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like submit_bid and withdraw_bid, and from lookup tools like 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 purpose is self-evident – retrieve bids on a job – but the description never explicitly compares this tool to alternatives or states when not to use it. There is no mention of get_job or other tools that might offer related context, so an agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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