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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses that the server holds no keys or funds, that it relays to the same public door any HTTP client uses, that it is free with no gas, and that the signature comes from the user's own wallet or passkey. With annotations only saying non-readonly/open-world/non-idempotent, this adds real custody and cost context.

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?

Front-loads the core instruction well, but the tail repeats itself: 'Free with a valid signature' is restated as 'Cost and signer: free, no gas', and 'this server holds no keys and no funds' is restated as 'the house never holds a key.' Roughly a sentence of 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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description still notes the recorded bid and the accept/lapse follow-up. The one gap is non-idempotency: it never says what happens on a duplicate submission, despite idempotentHint=false.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'unchanged' and 'personal_sign output' constraints. The description restates those same constraints rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Complete the outcome bid') and immediately anchors it as step 2 of 2, distinguishing it from prepare_outcome_bid and outcome_bid_status. The relay target POST /labor/outcome-bids makes the underlying action unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear sequencing context: use the BODY_JSON from prepare_outcome_bid UNCHANGED plus the wallet signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, and points to outcome_bid_status to see whether the creator accepted or let it lapse. No explicit 'do not use' case, but the prerequisite chain is effectively an exclusion.

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