botdigit_list_my_bids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses scope ('active and historical') and personalization ('your'), implying read-only access. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, sorting, or authentication requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps for a read-only list tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Perfectly concise for a simple list tool.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and to whom it is scoped. It omits pagination defaults and return format, but the schema covers parameters. Mostly complete, with minor gaps.

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 100%, so both parameters (page, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('your active and historical bids') with clear scope ('across BotDigit marketplace projects'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on bids, but does not explicitly name alternatives like list_proposal_drafts. Clear but no sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: retrieve your bids when you need them. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to sibling tools such as list_proposal_drafts or list_projects. Adequate but minimal guidance.

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