Show Bids Within A 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 description carries less burden. It adds that the tool returns a JSON object and lists the endpoint, but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior (despite optional page/per_page params in schema) or rate limits. The description does not contradict 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 4 sentences, reasonably concise. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add return type and required parameters. Some redundancy exists ('Use this to fetch' could be merged), but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with key information.

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 (read operation with annotations covering safety), the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any mention of pagination behavior, despite optional page/per_page parameters in the schema. The return type is mentioned as JSON object, but no details on response structure. For a query tool with pagination, this is a minor gap.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description only repeats the required parameters (project_id, bid_package_id, id) without adding any new meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, no extra value is added, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 information on a Bid from a Bid Package, with a specific verb ('Return information') and resource. It mentions fetching full details of specific records by identifier. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_a_bid_within_a_project' or 'show_a_bid_within_a_company', so clarity is slightly diminished.

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 full details of a specific bid by its identifier, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list functions or other show tools). No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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