View Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that all current bids are returned and that an 'awarded' status surfaces awarded_bid_id as the winning bid — useful conditional behavior not visible in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, when to use it, and how to read the awarded case. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still covers the one non-obvious result nuance (awarded_bid_id). Purpose, trigger, and the key conditional outcome are all present for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that job_id comes from list_open_jobs() or post_job(). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('View a job posting and all current bids'), and the mention of bids hints at the single-job scope that separates it from list_open_jobs. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast against, so it falls just under the top mark.

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?

'Use this to check the status of a job you posted or bid on' gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to the caller's relationship to the job. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for listing jobs, so it is strong but not complete routing.

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