ponisha_my_bids

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or what the status values mean. It essentially restates the read-only listing purpose without enriching it.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its lack of any structured guidance is better captured under contextual completeness rather than penalized here.

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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain pagination defaults or limits, nor does it clarify the status filter or what results are returned. An agent can call the tool, but cannot confidently predict its filtering or paging behavior.

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 0% across three parameters. The description gestures at 'status' but does not explain the 'all', 'active', and 'deactive' enum values, and it says nothing about 'page' or 'per_page'. Since low schema coverage requires the description to compensate, this is a significant gap, though the status mention provides minimal partial coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the bids you have submitted and their status.' The phrase 'you have submitted' scopes it to the authenticated user's bids, which helps distinguish it from siblings like ponisha_list_project_bids. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 implies when to use it by referring to bids 'you have submitted,' suggesting a personal bid history rather than project-level or single-bid retrieval. But it gives no explicit alternatives, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and scope.

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