cpu_list_lots

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

No annotations are provided, but the description states 'Public read,' confirming no side effects. It also notes that the server clamps radius to 50 and indicates defaults. This is sufficient transparency for a read-only browse tool.

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 sentence that packs in many details efficiently. It uses punctuation effectively to separate ideas. Slightly more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it is still concise and front-loaded.

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 browse tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers filters, sort, pagination, availability, and zone constraints. It also references a related tool for further context. Missing details like exact return format are compensated by the schema richness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining 'nearest needs a zone' and 'limit ≤ 200', and clarifying availability values. This helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 it's for browsing marketplace lots with filters, and distinguishes from sibling tools such as cpu_get_markets (compact overview) and cpu_list_my_lots (own lots). The verb 'browse' and target 'marketplace lots' is specific and 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 a clear workflow hint: 'start with cpu_get_markets for a compact overview, then drill in here.' It also explains the availability default and alternatives (open, incoming, all). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool.

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