recommend_bids_for_small_it_company

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that recommendations are personalized via companyProfile and includes a scoring/classification system, but does not detail side effects, data sources, or whether it's read-only. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Description is extremely concise with one sentence and a parenthetical. No redundant information; every word adds value. Front-loaded with key functionality.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description explains the core output (score and classification) but lacks full detail on output format, pagination, or error handling. It is somewhat complete for a recommendation tool but could be more explicit.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, merely reiterating that companyProfile personalizes recommendations. No parameter-specific details are added beyond what's in the 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?

Description clearly states the tool recommends bids for small IT companies with a suitability score and classification. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_it_bids by focusing on personalized recommendation based on company profile.

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?

Implies usage for personalized bid recommendation but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like search_it_bids or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions provided.

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