View Bid Form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint and return type ('JSON object'), confirming the read behavior. No additional behavioral traits beyond annotations are provided, but the description is consistent. With annotations, the added value is moderate.

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 two sentences plus endpoint/domain info, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is mostly concise but includes redundant mention of required parameters already in the schema. Still efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description states 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Bid Management records', which is adequate for a simple read tool. It covers required parameters and API details. However, it could mention pagination parameters or error handling. Overall, sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 each parameter described. The description repeats required parameters but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. For example, page and per_page are not explained in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'View single Bid Form' and 'read information about Bid Management records', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like view_bid_form_project, which operates at the project level. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 read information about Bid Management records', implying a read-only usage context. It provides the endpoint and required parameters, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., index_bid_forms for listing, view_bid_form_project for project context). Usage context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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