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

Annotations are minimal (only destructiveHint=false), so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses the irreversible nature of the bid, the 90% payout, and the dependence on the poster for completion. It goes beyond the annotation by detailing the payment and editing restrictions, which is valuable. However, it doesn't specify what happens if the bid is rejected or if the job is not completed, so slightly imperfect.

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 well-structured paragraph, starting with the core action and then layering critical constraints. It is dense but not verbose, with each sentence adding essential information for the agent. Slightly long but justified given the number of constraints; no wasted words.

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 complex transactional tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this description covers the major prerequisites, lifecycle rules, and payment implications. It misses some edge cases (e.g., error conditions, whether the bid can be seen by others), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to make an informed call.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context like 'decide the amount before calling' and 'pitch to the job's poster', but these are supplementary to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but doesn't significantly extend meaning.

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 states the verb (submit) and resource (a bid on a job), and explicitly states the context of the authenticated user. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'withdraw_bid' by describing the bid lifecycle and rules, ensuring an agent can identify its purpose.

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?

It provides explicit conditions for use: cannot bid on own job, one bid per job, requires Stripe Connect payout account, and warns about payment timing and amount. It effectively guides the agent on prerequisites and consequences, though it does not name alternative siblings explicitly, but the context makes the usage clear.

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