get_lhb_seats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses raw value preservation, no cross-reason seat deduplication, pagination/error diagnostics, and page/time bounds, but it does not state read-only behavior, auth/rate-limit expectations, or error response shape.

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 and dense with no filler, moving from purpose to preservation rules to pagination bounds. It is slightly jargon-heavy and packs several facts into semicolon-separated clauses, but remains efficient.

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 six-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, output field names, pagination diagnostics, and two parameter bounds. Gaps remain around format/no_cache semantics, full return structure, and how it relates to get_lhb_detail.

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% across six parameters. The description gives ranges for max_pages and max_seconds and implies code/date meaning, but leaves format and no_cache completely unexplained.

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?

States it returns Dragon-Tiger buy/sell seat data for an exact stock/date, which is a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling get_lhb_detail, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_lhb_detail. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'exact stock/date'.

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