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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the permanence of the action ('This is permanent and cannot be undone'), the consequence ('you cannot bid on that job again'), and the specific error case for re-bidding. This is rich behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It covers the action, constraints, permanence, and a critical warning without any fluff.

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 tool with a destructive annotation, the description is complete. It covers the action, conditions, consequences, and error handling. The output schema is absent, but the description doesn't need to explain return values for a simple withdrawal action.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description ('The bid's UUID') and format constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the action ('Withdraw your own bid on a job'), the actor ('as the bidder who placed it'), and the resource ('a job'). It distinguishes from siblings like submit_bid and accept_bid by specifying the withdrawal context and constraints.

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 states when this tool is applicable ('Only possible while the job is still open and your bid hasn't been accepted') and provides a clear exclusion ('Do not withdraw in order to re-bid at a different amount -- the second bid will be rejected with already_bid'). This gives the agent strong guidance on when to use it and when not to.

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