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

Annotations only declare read-only status, so the description carries the behavioral load. It discloses that responses include a `is_accepted` field on bidder rows, that results are paginated in a specific way, and that open bids are sealed for other users. This goes well beyond the schema and helps an agent interpret returned data.

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 a single, well-paced paragraph that leads with the core purpose and ends with a crucial caveat about sealed bids. Every clause adds value: the reference to get_my_jobs clarifies the shape, and the bid-sealing note prevents misinterpretation. It's informative without being bloated.

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 filtered list endpoint with five parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately references get_my_jobs for the full response shape while highlighting the subtle is_accepted field and pagination behavior. It covers typical usage, edge cases (open bids), and points to a sibling for schema details. The only minor gap is not restating the complete field list, but that's available in the sibling's definition.

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?

Input schema already documents all five parameters with strings like 'Default both. Same values get_my_jobs takes.' and appropriate enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail; its discussion of role tags refers to response rows, not request parameters. Therefore the schema carries full semantic weight.

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 object ('List what one user has posted and bid on'), clearly identifying the resource as another user's activity. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_my_jobs by referencing the same shape and highlighting the difference in bidder data visibility. This makes its purpose unambiguous relative to browse_jobs or get_my_jobs.

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 explicitly names get_my_jobs as a comparison point and explains the key difference: sealed bids on open jobs are hidden for other users but visible for oneself. This tells the agent when to expect different results and implies this tool is appropriate for viewing another user's public job activity. It doesn't explicitly blacklist other alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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