search_lots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates an apparent read-only search operation but does not explain how query and product_id interact, what happens when no filters are supplied, or whether the result set is limited. There is no contradiction, but important behavioral detail is missing.

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 extremely short, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise despite being minimal.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is too sparse for a tool with three optional parameters and no annotations. It omits usage guidance, limit semantics, and behavior with no filters, so an agent lacks enough context to reliably select and invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'text' to the query parameter and 'product' to product_id, and the 'and/or' phrasing hints that these filters can be combined. However, it does not clarify the limit parameter or the exact matching behavior for the query text.

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 names a specific action ('search') and resource ('stock lots'), and identifies the two key filtering dimensions: text and product. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_products or search_locations by noting the resource is 'lots', though it does not explicitly contrast with get_lot_detail.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_stock_moves, search_products, or get_lot_detail. The 'by text and/or product' phrase only implies a search scenario; it does not state exclusions or selection criteria among siblings.

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