get_lot

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

No annotations are provided (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explains the return value structure well (splits with date/quantity/value, summary fields) which gives some transparency. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (non-destructive), or disclose any auth requirements, or clarify what happens with an invalid/nonexistent GUID. For a read operation, this is somewhat sufficient but could state safety explicitly.

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 reasonably concise and well structured. It front-loads the purpose statement, then documents the parameter, then enumerates the return fields in a clear bulleted format. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter line duplicates schema information. The return section uses 'Returns:' leading with the general description, which is clean and scannable.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage on the single parameter, this tool is relatively simple and the description covers it well. Return values are documented (title, notes, splits, summary). The description is complete for a single-read tool with well-defined output. It would benefit from noting it's a safe/read operation, but given the simplicity and output schema, coverage is adequate.

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% — the single parameter 'guid' is already documented in the schema as 'Lot GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)'. The description adds marginal value by repeating 'Lot GUID (or 8+ char prefix)' in the docstring, essentially matching the schema. This is redundant rather than additive, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 'Get detailed information about a lot' with a specific verb (get) and resource (lot). It lists the return structure explicitly, distinguishing it from related tools like list_lots (list vs get a single lot). However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_lots for when to use each, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage by describing what it returns (detailed lot info including splits), which suggests when to use it (when you need split-level and summary details of a specific lot). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it vs alternatives like list_lots (for browsing lots) or calculate_lot_gain (for gain calc) or get_prices. Usage context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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