Show Bid Package

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already fully disclose safety traits. The description adds context about the API endpoint and that it returns a JSON object. No contradictions. The additional disclosure of the Procore API section and endpoint path provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a brief note on required parameters and API reference. Every sentence provides value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simplicity (4 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and required parameters. However, it does not mention the pagination parameters (page, per_page) or their behavior, which are present in the schema. Still, the overall completeness is high.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description reiterates required parameters (company_id, id) but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool returns full details of a specific Bid Management record by identifier using verbs like 'Return' and 'fetch'. It specifies the resource and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_bid_packages_company' or 'show_bid_package_project', leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage for fetching a single record but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned. The context of required parameters gives some direction, but lacks exclusions.

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