List Bid Contacts

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, etc. The description adds behavioral context: pagination details, filtering capabilities, and response format. This adds value beyond annotations, but lacks information about authorization or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured: main purpose first, then usage, then API details. It is not overly verbose, though some information (like endpoint URL) could be considered optional. Overall, it is well-organized and clearly written.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return value. It mentions 'paginated JSON array of Bid Management records' and pagination metadata, which is adequate. However, it does not describe error handling or detailed response structure, leaving some gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions vendor_id and pagination parameters, but does not significantly augment the schema descriptions. The reference to external filtering docs is helpful but not extra semantics.

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 lists bid contacts for a company or a specific vendor, using a specific verb ('Get a list') and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic list tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools among many siblings.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Bid Management records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It mentions required parameters but does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, which would be helpful given the large sibling list.

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