Show Bid Within A Bid Package

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds impactful behavioral details: project_id defaulting from procore_set_config, the single JSON object return, and concrete error statuses (401/403/404). This is additive context that helps the agent anticipate failure modes. No contradictions 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 structured with a clear opening purpose, then usage guidance, behavioral details, and API reference. Every sentence adds value—defaults, error payloads, endpoint—making it information-dense without fluff. It is slightly long but justified for the context it provides.

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?

For a read-only tool with three fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, use case, prerequisites, return type, error handling, and API endpoint. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the statement 'Returns a single JSON object describing the bid.' This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail: project_id can default from config, and bid_package_id/id must reference existing parent records. However, the statement about project_id defaulting slightly conflicts with the required flag and the later 'Required parameters' list, creating minor ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Return information on a Bid from a Bid Package,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further distinguishes from list tools by stating 'when you already know which bid you want,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Even without explicit comparison to sibling show tools, the name and phrasing make the scope clear.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which bid you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve them with the matching list tool first,' implying the alternative for unknown IDs. This provides clear context and a prerequisite without requiring a formal when-not section.

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