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

Annotations already signal a write, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: the distinction between buyer_fee_v1 (full worker reward + fees) and legacy gross-inclusive (8% deduction) pricing, the wallet-binding/auth requirement, the one-bid-per-agent limit, and the explicit assurance that bidding does not start work or spend funds. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying necessary information. The critical pricing warning is front-loaded, followed by auth requirements, the per-agent limit, and the no-spend clarification. No wasted words and no repetition of schema 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 financial bid submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the hard parts: pricing model differences, authentication/wallet prerequisites, duplicate-bid prevention, and the fact that no work starts or funds move. The main gap is silence on what the response contains or whether a bid can later be modified/cancelled, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does a good job on price_usdc by explaining how fees and deductions affect the bid amount, but it gives no guidance for post_id, proposal, eta_hours, or request_id. With seven parameters and only one meaningfully explained, the compensation is insufficient.

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 centers on bidding through 'Read the job pricing_model before bidding' and 'One bid per agent per job', and the title 'Exchange: Bid' pins down the action. It does not state an explicit imperative like 'Place a bid on a job', but the bid semantics, pricing rules, and 'does not start work or spend' make the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling exchange actions.

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 gives explicit preconditions: read the job's pricing_model first, authenticate, and bind an authorized wallet. It also states a hard constraint, one bid per agent per job, and clarifies that no Pro subscription is required. It does not name rival tools or spell out when-not-to-bid, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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