cpu_get_lot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states this is a public read, that it resolves lots in any state including evicted ones, and that only an 'open' lot is buyable. This meaningfully clarifies behavior beyond the schema, though it does not mention error cases or return format.

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 compact: one sentence establishes the resource and returned fields, a second adds the key lifecycle nuance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what fields the agent can expect, clarifies the operation is public, and resolves the important semantic ambiguity around evicted versus buyable lots. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the only parameter, lotId, is documented as 'The lot id to inspect.' The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that it operates by id, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline given the schema's completeness.

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 and resource ('Inspect a single lot by id') and enumerates the exact fields returned (resource, remaining/listed units, price per unit, Hub location, seller, lifecycle state). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cpu_list_lots and cpu_get_lot_terms by focusing on single-lot inspection.

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 clear context: this is a public read operation for inspecting any lot by id, even evicted ones. It also cautions that observing a lot is not the same as being able to buy it, which guides the agent away from using this tool to attempt purchases. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as cpu_buy_lot or cpu_list_lots, but the usage context is clear.

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