list_lots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with 'List' as a read operation. It adds valuable behavioral context: the 'Showing X-Y of Z lots' line, compact vs verbose output, and the special limit=0 behavior. No contradiction with annotations; the description complements them by describing output formatting and pagination.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then logically flows into output behavior, pagination, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list is somewhat verbose. The structure is clear and efficient; a slightly tighter wording could improve it, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, output formats, pagination, verbose mode, and parameter semantics. It doesn't discuss error cases or account not found, but those are likely covered by the output schema and are not critical for basic usage. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 explain each parameter itself, and it does thoroughly. 'account' explicitly lists accepted formats (full path, %short GUID, full 32-char GUID), 'include_closed' states its meaning, 'verbose' distinguishes output types, 'limit' explains page size and the count-only special value, and 'offset' defines 0-indexing. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with 'List all lots for an investment account,' which uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_lot' (singular) and 'create_lot' by emphasizing 'all lots.' The mention of output format (compact vs verbose) further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 when to use the tool (list lots) and gives practical usage details like pagination, verbose mode, and limit=0 count-only behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'list all' wording implies contrast with single-lot access, and the pagination/verbose guidance is actionable. Slight gap: no explicit 'use get_lot for a single lot' note, but the context is sufficient.

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