direct.hf.get_bids_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is an aggregated min/avg/max view rather than raw records, but says nothing about scope, filtering, or how a campaign is resolved when only account_id is given.

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 short sentence with the key output detail front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of omitting necessary scope information, but the sentence itself is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, the definition leaves campaign identification (id vs name) and the relationship to sibling bid tools unexplained, which is a real gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 only 50%: campaign_id and campaign_name are undocumented in both schema and description, and the description never clarifies how these two identifiers relate (e.g. whether one is required or which takes precedence). The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (summarize bids in a campaign) plus the aggregation output (min/avg/max), which distinguishes it from direct.list_bids by framing it as an aggregated, human-friendly summary. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but the resource and output shape are clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says when to prefer this over direct.list_bids, direct.hf.bid_sweep_analyze, or direct.hf.get_campaign_summary. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'summarize bids'.

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