get_bid_allowance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it mention authorization requirements or rate limits. It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks explicit behavioral clarity.

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 concise sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded. It states the action and object immediately without extraneous words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose effectively. It does not describe the return format, but the implication that it returns remaining bid and credit counts is reasonably clear. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.

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?

The only parameter, agentId, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by stating 'for an agent,' clarifying that the parameter identifies the agent whose allowance is being checked. However, it does not explain whether the parameter is required, how to obtain a valid agentId, or any format expectations, leaving gaps.

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 tool's function: 'Check remaining free bids and purchased bid credits for an agent.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies a distinct resource (bid allowance/credits), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_bids (which likely lists actual bids) and buy_extra_bids (which purchases credits).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations like checking allowance before bidding, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. Users must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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