View Bid Form

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

Discloses read-only behavior ('Read-only — it changes nothing') which aligns with annotations. Adds return type ('single JSON object'), failure modes with HTTP status codes (401/403/404) and their likely causes, and the company_id default from procore_set_config. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and provides actionable behavioral context.

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 dense but not bloated. It front-loads the purpose, then covers usage, defaults, return value, safety, errors, required params, and API endpoint in logical order. Some redundancy exists (required parameters restated from schema, read-only duplicated from annotations) but each sentence contributes useful 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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately notes the return is 'a single JSON object' but doesn't detail its structure. It covers prerequisites, default behavior, error handling, and the exact API endpoint, which is sufficient for a read-only retriever. The main omission is lack of sibling differentiation or more return structure detail.

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 schema already describes all three parameters as URL path identifiers, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: company_id defaults to procore_set_config, and bid_id/bid_form_id must be existing parent records resolved via the list tool. This enhances the raw schema with usage semantics.

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?

Description states 'View single Bid Form' with a clear verb and resource. It specifies the use case 'when you already know which bid form you want and need its full field set,' which separates it from list-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'view_bid_form_project,' relying on naming conventions for the company/project scope difference.

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?

Explicitly gives a when-to-use condition: 'Use this when you already know which bid form you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs the agent to resolve parent IDs via the matching list tool first. It doesn't name specific alternative tools like 'index_bid_forms,' but the referral to a list tool is sufficient guidance.

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