List Bids Within A Project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and scopes results to the user's assigned bids. No contradiction with 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 only 4 sentences, front-loads the purpose, then use cases, return type, pagination, required params, and API info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 3 simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to paginate, and the output type. Could mention example fields of a bid record, but not essential.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds that project_id is required and that page/per_page control pagination, which minimally supplements the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return a list of' and resource 'your assigned Bids within a Project'. It specifies use cases like paginated overview, finding IDs, and filtering. The phrase 'your assigned Bids' distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_bids_within_a_bid_package or list_bids_within_a_company.

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 clear context: when to use (enumerate Bid Management records for paginated overview, find IDs, filter) and implies it's project-level via required project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for company or bid package scopes.

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