list_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 and does so well. It discloses the default output format (compact one-line-per-lot), what verbose=true does, the meaning of limit=0, and that include_closed controls whether fully-sold lots are shown. It does not mention performance implications or whether this triggers any side effects, but for a read-only list operation on investments that's a minor gap.

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 somewhat long but front-loaded with the core purpose sentence first, followed by the output format details, then the Args block. Every sentence earns its place — the output format description is important for agent expectation-setting, and the Args block is comprehensive without redundancy. Could trim slightly but remains readable and well-organized.

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 read-only pagination tool with 5 parameters (4 having defaults) and an output schema present, this is complete. It covers output format, defaults, special values (limit=0), accepted account reference formats, and verbose behavior. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so the description doesn't need to. The only minor gap is not describing error conditions (e.g., invalid account), but that's acceptable.

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 all 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema. However, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter in the Args section: account (with accepted ref formats), include_closed (with default and meaning), verbose (with behavior), limit (with range and special value 0), and offset (with semantics). This maps closely to the schema fields, so the description adds needed meaning that the sparse schema lacks.

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 'List all lots for an investment account' with a specific verb and resource, plus scoping. The first line distinguishes it from siblings like list_accounts, list_transactions, and get_lot. The description also details the output format ('Showing X-Y of Z lots' line, one-line-per-lot format), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains pagination, count-only mode, and verbose mode clearly. It mentions 'Use verbose=true for full JSON' which gives guidance on when to use verbose. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_lot or calculate_lot_gain, though the purpose is clear enough that alternatives are not ambiguous.

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