list_lots

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Public read' indicating read-only access, details filtering, sorting, pagination, and zones. It doesn't cover rate limits or performance, but the behavioral outline is clear and accurate.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first lists all features compactly; the second clarifies defaults and usage tip. No redundancy, front-loaded with key actions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers major parameter groups, defaults, and usage flow. It lacks details on return format (e.g., pagination response structure), which would be helpful for an agent, but it is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into categories (filters, sort, pagination, zone) and explaining defaults (e.g., availability default 'open', limit max 200). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's individual 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 clearly states the verb 'browse' and the resource 'marketplace lots' with specific filters and features. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_markets' by recommending starting there for 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 provides clear context: use for detailed browsing after 'get_markets', explains default behavior for 'availability', and lists main parameters. It lacks explicit when-not statements for all siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for proper tool selection.

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