Show Bid Package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a JSON object but does not disclose additional behaviors like error responses, null handling, or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description provides minimal added transparency.

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 at three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes key details (required params, API endpoint). It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly improved with bullet points.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and required inputs. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned JSON object or address pagination behavior (page/per_page), leaving some completeness gaps for an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description merely restates that project_id and id are required, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already 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 detailed information for a specific Bid Management record by identifier. It includes the endpoint and required parameters, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like show_bid_package_company or list_bid_packages_project, which share similar names.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details' which implies when to use it, but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for listing or company-level packages. Usage context is implied but not explicitly supported.

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