Target action: bids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — does not change spending,' which adds behavioral clarity. No contradictions. With annotations present, the description adds context about not changing spending, but the behavioral disclosure is slightly redundant given the annotations. Still, it's consistent and clear.

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 four sentences with no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose: first states what the tool returns, second declares its read-only nature, third gives usage guidance, fourth provides an alternative and rate limit. The key information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 read-one listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains return values, usage context (before saving bids), alternatives, and rate limit (20 requests/min). The tool's purpose and behavior are fully captured without 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for itemId ('Avito listing ID for which bids and budgets are requested'). The tool description does not add new parameter-level insight beyond the schema, but it does clarify that the single parameter is for a single listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 uses specific verbs ('Returns detailed information') and clearly identifies the resource ('target-action bids for ONE listing'). It lists exact data points returned (active price/budget, min/max/recommended values, strategy, forecast). The sibling alternative cpa_target_get_promotions_by_item_ids is explicitly named, distinguishing that this tool is for a single listing.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it before save_manual_bid/save_auto_bid to find the allowed min/max/recommended amounts.' It also tells when not to use it and provides an alternative: 'For multiple listings at once, use cpa_target_get_promotions_by_item_ids (batch up to 200).' This covers both context and exclusions.

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