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

The annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the action is permanent, the bid cannot be restored or replaced, re-bidding is rejected, and the withdrawn bid remains publicly listed with details sealed. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds critical constraints and consequences. It is somewhat long and contains minor redundancy ('permanent and cannot be undone' plus detailed consequences), but every section carries meaningful operational guidance for a destructive action.

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 destructive, irreversible operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time context: eligibility, permanence, inability to re-bid, visibility implications, and expected failure mode. Nothing needed for correct invocation or expectation-setting is missing.

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?

The input schema already fully documents bid_id as 'The bid's UUID,' so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context that the bid must be the caller's own and must be in a withdrawable state, but it does not add new parameter-level formatting or source guidance, so the baseline 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Withdraw your own bid on a job, as the bidder who placed it.' It also clarifies scope by emphasizing 'your own bid,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_bid, submit_bid, or cancel_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?

It explicitly states when withdrawal is possible: 'Only possible while the job is still open and your bid hasn't been accepted.' It also gives strong when-not guidance by warning against withdrawing to re-bid at a different amount and explaining that the second bid will be rejected.

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