wwa_bid_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents but does not state operational traits such as read-only nature, error behavior when the ID is not found, or any required permissions. For a simple get operation, the risk is low, but the description could still add a note about not modifying data.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the primary action, and includes the key return details without any fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It states input (ID), output (full content), and return structure (text, metadata, sections). It does not mention error handling or what happens for invalid IDs, but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('Bid ID from wwa_bid_search or wwa_bid_list'). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond confirming the ID is used to fetch the bid, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to fetch the full content of a specific bid by ID, and explicitly lists what is returned (text, metadata, sections). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools.

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 phrase 'by its ID' and the mention of returning full content imply this is the retrieval step after obtaining an ID from wwa_bid_search or wwa_bid_list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so a dedicated usage note would improve it.

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