submit_bid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'submit' but does not disclose whether the action is idempotent, what side effects occur, what happens on duplicate bids, or any authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is not verbose, but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points for behavior).

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 transactional tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not cover what happens after submission (e.g., response, errors, confirmation). Sibling tools add context but are not referenced.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Bid amount in PROVE tokens'). The description does not explain formats or constraints not already in 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 'submit' and the resource 'bid for a proof request'. It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'request_proof' (which creates a request) and 'verify_proof' (which verifies).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_filtered_requests' to find requests, 'request_proof' to create one). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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