View Bid Form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and includes the API endpoint, but does not disclose pagination behavior or rate limits. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra 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, consisting of two sentences plus a parameter list and endpoint. It front-loads the purpose. However, the inclusion of the full endpoint path, while informative, is somewhat redundant given the schema parameters, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (no output schema, sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure beyond 'JSON object describing records', nor does it address pagination despite page/per_page parameters. It lacks differentiation from the company-level sibling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the required parameters explicitly, reinforcing their importance, but the schema already provides clear descriptions. The endpoint structure adds context, but the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('view') and resource ('Bid Form'), and specifies it reads Bid Management records from Procore. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'view_bid_form_company', which likely serves a similar purpose at the company level, reducing clarity.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('to read information about Bid Management records') but offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The sibling tool 'view_bid_form_company' is not mentioned, leaving the agent without explicit context for selection.

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