Show A Bid Within A Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering the behavioral safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Returns a JSON object', which is trivial. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise with three sentences and additional API endpoint info. It front-loads the purpose and includes useful context like the Procore API section and specific endpoint URL. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more compact by merging the second and third sentences.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately states the purpose and required parameters. However, it does not explain the return value structure beyond 'JSON object', nor does it clarify the role of pagination parameters (page, per_page) which may confuse agents expecting a single record. The description is functionally complete but misses minor explanatory details.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description redundantly lists required parameters 'id, project_id' but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Pagination parameters (page, per_page) are not explained in the description. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 information on a specific Bid from a Project, using identifiers. It specifies it's for Bid Management records. The name and description together differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_a_bid_within_a_company' by explicitly mentioning 'Project' scope.

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 advises using this tool to fetch full details of a specific bid by identifier, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., listing bids or showing a bid within a company).

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