get_lot

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description reinforces this by specifying it 'Returns' data rather than mutating state. It adds useful behavioral detail about the response contents (all splits, summary fields), which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose line, an Args section, and a Returns section that lists key output fields. It is somewhat repetitive with the schema's parameter description, but every section adds useful navigation value.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers input format and return structure, though it does not describe error behavior for unknown or invalid GUIDs, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents the guid parameter fully. The description repeats the parameter information without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Get detailed information') on a specific resource ('a lot'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implies differentiation from list_lots by focusing on a single lot's detailed data, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools.

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 is implied: call this when you have a lot GUID and need full details including splits and summary. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, such as list_lots for enumeration or calculate_lot_gain for gain calculations.

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