cpu_list_lots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Public read', which is an important safety trait. It also reveals the default availability behavior ('defaults to open') and implies that frozen lots are hidden by default via the schema. While it doesn't describe the exact response shape or error handling, the read-only nature and key defaults are disclosed, exceeding the minimum.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that covers all essential aspects without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Browse marketplace lots') and each clause adds value. While it is slightly long, the density is justified by the tool's 11 parameters and the need to mention sibling tool and defaults.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description effectively covers filters, sort modes, pagination limits, optional zone, availability semantics, adjacency to a compact overview tool, and read-only nature. It does not describe the result object, but the tool name and sibling context make the return type (a list of lots) inferable. The description feels complete for practical invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into logical categories (filters, sort, pagination, zone) and highlights the availability default, but these details are already present in the schema. No new syntax or format information is added, so the description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and a clear resource ('marketplace lots'), and enumerates the key capabilities (filters, sort, pagination, zone). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cpu_get_markets by positioning this as the 'drill in' tool after a compact overview, 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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'start with cpu_get_markets for a compact overview, then drill in here.' It also specifies when to use different availability values ('use incoming for en-route lots or all') and notes that 'nearest needs a zone,' providing clear context for choosing parameters and alternatives.

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