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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: ordering ('newest first') and the refundable-stake lifecycle ('held while the bid competes, refunded on every other outcome'). It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or pagination behavior, but the stake semantics are a meaningful disclosure beyond the schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then packs the return contents into the same line. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the fields returned. It covers scope and ordering well; the only gap is that it never notes the status filter or pagination available to the caller, though the schema supplies those.

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 all four parameters (limit, cursor, status, api_key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filter or paging detail, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource with scope: 'List your own bids across every job'. It also enumerates the returned fields (job title/status, bid status and amount, stake), which cleanly separates it from siblings like jobs_bid (place a bid) and jobs_my_work (accepted work).

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?

Usage is implied by 'your own bids' and 'across every job', so an agent can infer this is the self-scoped bid listing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. jobs_my_work for work you've won), leaving the routing to inference.

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