Index Bid Forms

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description goes beyond by explaining pagination ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload behavior (401/403/404), and the parent-record requirement. This is meaningful context beyond the structured annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, pagination, safety, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core function and contains no fluff, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 8 params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: return type (JSON array), pagination, error cases, and required prerequisites. It doesn't enumerate the fields of a bid form, but the tool's role as an ID-lookup/list endpoint is adequately communicated.

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 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default behavior for project_id (from procore_set_config) and states that bid_package_id must reference an existing parent. This is useful, though the 'default when omitted' claim sits awkwardly with the schema's 'required' marker for project_id, preventing a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetches a list of Bid Forms for a Bid Package') and clearly scopes it to a Bid Package. It also distinguishes the tool by its intended role ('discover bid forms or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), setting it apart from sibling tools like list_bids_within_a_bid_package.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to discover bid forms or to look up the id of one') and provides a prerequisite resolution step ('bid_package_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It also explains the project_id default. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for exclusion, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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