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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the write nature, credential signing model, facade-side validation rules, and the important cost edge case that omitting cost means net efficiency is not counted and is never padded with zero.

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 front-loaded with the action and required fields, and the rest is organized into short labeled chunks. The bilingual repetition and the minor '[新路径]' marker add slight redundancy, preventing a perfect score.

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?

It covers prerequisites, credential modes, facade-side validation, and cost semantics, which is strong for a six-parameter tool. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what a successful or rejected bid returns.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description recaps required vs optional fields and auth behavior, but adds little meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 verb and resource: 'Bid on a published task' and marks it as WRITE. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like qy_claim or qy_publish, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear context: bid only on published tasks, register first with qy_register for session identity, and optionally pass auth for cross-session use. It does not provide explicit 'do not use when' exclusions or name a preferred sibling alternative.

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