List my bids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the response containing status and winner flag, but it does not disclose pagination, default behavior, or distinctions between summary and raw formats.

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, focused sentence that states the resource, scope, and key output fields. It contains no filler and is appropriately concise for a simple read-only listing 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 basic read-only list call, the description together with annotations is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema and no explanation of page or format semantics, an agent cannot fully understand the response variations or choose parameters 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%, and the description makes no mention of the page or format parameters. The schema's enum and defaults provide some meaning, but the description does nothing to help an agent choose between 'summary' and 'raw' or understand pagination.

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 ('List') and resource ('bids placed by the authenticated freelancer'), clearly differentiating it from list_project_bids by scope. It also identifies returned fields like status and winner flag, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies that this tool is for viewing the freelancer's own bids, which provides some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool over list_project_bids or any other sibling, and gives no exclusion guidance.

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