wwa_bidmate_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key conditional behavior: 'Can use AI analysis if API key provided.' However, it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether a profile is required), or what happens when the optional profile is omitted. The statement 'against your bidder profile' conflicts with schema-marking profile as optional, creating ambiguity.

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 core purpose and output. Every clause adds value (purpose, evaluation method, output details, optional AI behavior). No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides essential return values and hints at AI capability, but it leaves gaps: it does not explain the optional profile behavior, what 'AI analysis' entails beyond a score, or error conditions. The lack of an output schema makes the return-value mention useful, but the inconsistency about profile usage reduces completeness.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'bidder profile' and the AI conditional, but these are already partially covered in the parameter descriptions (e.g., use_ai description mentions 'AI-powered analysis'). It does not clarify the 'tender' format beyond the schema's reference to wwa_tender_search results.

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 function: 'Go/no-go scoring for a tender opportunity' and specifies the outputs ('score (0-100), verdict, risks, and strengths'). It uses a specific verb ('scoring') and identifies the resource ('tender opportunity'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wwa_tender_search (searching) or wwa_compliance_check (compliance).

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 gives clear context: it is used to evaluate a tender for go/no-go decisions by comparing against a bidder profile. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or provide alternative tool names. This is a minor gap, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide.

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