wwa_bid_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It does disclose that results include 'snippets with relevance scores' and that matching is semantic. However, it does not mention potential limitations, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though this is likely implied for a search 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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero fluff. Every sentence provides meaningful information: what it does and what it returns.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose, return format (snippets and relevance scores), and gives an example query. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use effectively, though it could mention result ordering or default limit behavior (though limit is in schema).

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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds an illustrative example for the query parameter ('social value methodology', 'pricing approach') which aids understanding but does not fundamentally change parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 performs 'semantic search across the bid content library' and 'finds relevant past bids by matching against stored content.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like wwa_bid_list (listing) and wwa_bid_get (retrieval of a specific bid).

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 usage for finding past bids via semantic matching but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like wwa_tender_search or wwa_blueprint_search. There is no exclusion or guidance on when not to use, making usage partially implied rather than explicit.

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