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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial behavior: bids are classified open/completed via the admin outcome engine, rejected/lapsed/refunded bids are hidden, pagination defaults and limits, and OAuth is required. That filtering and visibility detail is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the when-to-use trigger, followed by visibility rules and pagination facts. Dense but each clause carries operational information; only the pagination restatement is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 values need not be re-explained, yet the description still clarifies that pagination.total counts only visible bids and how to phrase has_more results. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 limit and offset are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates the 1-200 range, 25 default, and offset paging. It adds no new syntax or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 (see) and resource (bids placed by the authenticated user) with concrete example utterances ('show my bids', 'did any of my bids settle?'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_my_orders and list_my_standing_bids.

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?

Provides clear triggering context via example phrasings and scopes it to the authenticated user's own bids. It does not explicitly contrast against near-neighbors such as get_my_orders or list_my_standing_bids, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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