create_lot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a create operation, it doesn't state whether the account must already exist, whether creating is reversible/deletable, what happens with duplicate titles, or what the response contains. Given the output schema is present, return-value details are somewhat covered, but durability and constraint behavior are unaddressed.

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 moderately sized and reasonably structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief conceptual explanation, then a clear Args section. The account format detail is valuable, but the two-sentence conceptual preamble about cost basis could be trimmed slightly since much is implied by the tool name domain.

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 this is a create operation with no annotations, an output schema present, and 3 params at 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key conceptual background and account format details well. However, it's incomplete on behavior (uniqueness constraints, reversibility, required account existence) and glosses over the 'notes' parameter. Adequate but has clear 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain parameters. It does explain 'account' in detail (accepted ref formats: full path, %short GUID, full 32-char GUID) and gives a concrete example for 'title'. However, 'notes' receives only a terse 'Optional notes' with no elaboration. The account explanation is genuinely useful, but notes could use more context.

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 verb + resource: 'Create a new lot for cost basis tracking.' It further explains what lots do ('group investment purchases for tracking cost basis and calculating capital gains when selling'). It distinguishes this as a create operation among lot siblings (list_lots, get_lot, close_lot, calculate_lot_gain), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 provides background on what lots are for (tracking cost basis, calculating capital gains when selling), implying when you'd create one. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like assign_split_to_lot or close_lot, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., account must exist).

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