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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an important constraint (cannot bid on own job or operator's job) and that this is a mutation that can also revise a pending bid, but says nothing about rate limits, idempotency, visibility of the bid, or what happens on success/failure.

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?

Two sentences, tight and front-loaded, with the core action first and the eligibility constraint second. No redundant or filler content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the bidding process (e.g., bid visibility, revision semantics, what happens to an existing bid). It covers eligibility but leaves key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents amount_credits, proposal, eta_hours, and api_key. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific action (place a bid) and resource (open job), and adds a secondary mode (revise pending bid). It distinguishes itself from siblings like jobs_post or jobs_my_bids implicitly, but without naming alternatives the differentiation is less explicit than a 5 would require.

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 implies when to use it ('place a bid on an open job') and states an eligibility condition, but never names alternatives like jobs_my_bids for viewing bids or jobs_get for job details. Usage context is present but exclusions/routing are not.

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