set_lot_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the action and gives an example format, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing lot sizes are overwritten), permission requirements, reversibility, or error behavior. The return is only vaguely described as 'Operation result,' which adds little transparency.

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 compact, using a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is informative: the action sentence, the parameter explanation with example, and the return line. There is no redundant or filler content, achieving excellent conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter format adequately. However, it omits preconditions (e.g., requires login/connection) and does not clarify the behavior of the operation beyond the vague 'Operation result.' Since output schema exists, return details are not required, but the missing usage context leaves some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a concrete example ('0050=1000|0028=1000') that clarifies the expected string format, which is a significant addition beyond the bare schema. However, it does not fully specify the syntax rules (e.g., separators, spaces), so it doesn't earn a 5.

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: 'Set lot size data for specific stocks.' This uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('lot size data') that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily for orders, queries, and connection management.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for configuring lot sizes, and no alternatives are mentioned. There is no guidance on prerequisites such as being logged in or connected, nor any when-not-to-use caveats. This makes it minimally acceptable but lacking clear direction.

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