get_suggested_bids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result includes suggested low/median/high bids next to the live bid, but it does not discuss request scope behavior, optional filter semantics, or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key resource and action. It earns its place in a single sentence, though the phrasing is slightly awkward and could be clearer about the bid comparison.

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?

Even though the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The required `market` parameter is never explained, and most optional filter parameters lack any semantic guidance. A caller would need external knowledge or sibling descriptions to use this confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies `kind` values ('keywords' or 'targets') and the idea of existing entities, but leaves `market`, `theme`, `ids`, `ad_group_ids`, and `campaign_ids` unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'get' Amazon's suggested low/median/high bid relative to the live bid. It also narrows scope to 'existing enabled keywords or targets' and specifies the kind values, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `get_suggested_bids_for_new`.

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 phrase 'for existing enabled keywords or targets' gives clear context and implies this is the tool for existing entities rather than new ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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