Show A Bid Within A Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's job is reduced. It adds the endpoint and return type (JSON object), which complements annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or error handling.

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 four sentences and includes the API endpoint, which is valuable context. However, the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Return detailed information... Use this to fetch the full details...'). A more condensed version would improve clarity, but overall it is fairly concise.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the structure of the returned JSON, but it doesn't. It also does not address the optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) or how they affect results. With many sibling tools, the lack of differentiation and missing output details make the description incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the 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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description lists required parameters (id, company_id) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate or enrich parameter understanding.

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 it returns detailed information about a specified Bid, using the verb 'Return' and specifying the resource 'Bid'. It includes the API path, which helps clarify the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like show_a_bid_within_a_project, limiting clarity for an agent comparing options.

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 such as show_bids_within_a_company (list) or show_a_bid_within_a_project (project context). It states the purpose but does not specify when to choose this tool, leaving the agent without usage boundaries.

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