evaluate_contractor_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses detection thresholds (30%+ above benchmark, vague lump sums, unrealistic timelines), which is genuine behavioral context. However it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what the evaluation returns, leaving an agent partially informed about a 10-parameter 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?

The purpose and flag summary are front-loaded and efficient. The Args block, however, largely restates parameter names already in the schema, adding only the enum values and the bid_line_items shape. It is defensible but partly redundant padding.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs acceptably but never describes the shape of the returned evaluation or the flag output. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on what an agent receives back would be expected.

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 enums are absent from the schema, so the description does real work: it explains bid_line_items expects dicts with 'description' and 'amount', notes timeline_days is None when unspecified, and supplies the enum values for scope_level ('light'/'standard_value_add') and finish_tier ('basic'/'upgraded'). These are essential details not present in the structured 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate a contractor bid against the internal cost estimate.' An agent can immediately tell this assesses a bid rather than producing an estimate, which is what most siblings do. It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like estimate_scope or check_renovation_roi, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. whether an internal estimate must already exist). The flag criteria hint at intended use but no explicit selection guidance is given.

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