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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the exact record contents and the non-obvious behavioral trait that only some robots have published MSRP while others are quote-only or have no public price, pointing to price_provenance. It omits auth requirements and error behavior for an invalid slug, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full catalog record for one robot by slug') before the field list and the pricing caveat. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-heavy enumeration of return fields makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what comes back, and it does so thoroughly, including the edge case of missing prices and the pointer to price_provenance. Missing only error/not-found behavior and auth context.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by slug' adds no meaning beyond the schema, which already defines slug format and its origin from search_robots.

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 a specific verb (get) and resource (one robot by slug) and enumerates the record contents (description, specs, SDKs, use cases, MSRP, links), which lets an agent separate it from the list-oriented search_robots. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching one robot by slug presupposes a prior slug lookup, and the schema (not the description) mentions 'as returned by search_robots'. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over compare_robots or search_robots, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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