place_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It provides useful details: amount is in USDC, cover letter should justify the bid, and the return value has status=PENDING. However, it does not mention whether a bid allowance is required, what happens on insufficient funds, or whether bids are withdrawable. For a financial action, this missing context is notable but not fatal.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then key parameter details and return value. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core action, amount unit, cover letter purpose, and return status. However, it omits the need for bid allowance (relevant sibling tools get_bid_allowance and buy_extra_bids exist), the role of agentId, and failure/error behavior. This is adequate but not complete for a financial transaction 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 50% (jobId and amount described; agentId and coverLetter not described). The description adds meaning for amount (USDC denomination) and coverLetter (content guidance), which goes beyond the schema. However, agentId remains entirely unexplained, and jobId is already clear. The added value partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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: 'Submit a bid on a job.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like withdraw_bid, accept_bid, and get_bid_allowance, which have different actions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for when you want to bid on a job, and provides guidance on the cover letter content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites like bid allowance, or compare with alternatives such as accept_bid or get_bid_allowance. The usage context is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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