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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content disclosure (it explicitly says there are no published prices, which prevents the agent from fishing for pricing data) but says nothing about response shape or that the payload is a fixed static fact set. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short routing sentence; the content inventory is front-loaded and the usage rule closes it. The parenthetical list of related entities is slightly crowded but each item is genuinely informative.

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 single-parameter, read-only, closed-world lookup with no output schema, the description covers what's inside, how it relates to sibling tools, and one important negative fact (no prices). No output schema exists, so a brief note on return structure would have closed the last gap.

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% and the single 'lang' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the subtle rule that fact texts remain in canonical Polish while labels switch. The description adds nothing about lang, so this is the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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?

Names a specific resource (MERA Robotics company profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns: registry data, business description, rental fleet, locations, languages, pricing policy, contacts, related entities. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_robots, get_how_we_work, and get_media_and_proof because it claims the aggregate/general-facts role rather than a single facet.

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?

"Use it first for any general question about MERA Robotics" gives a clear entry-point rule relative to the other tools. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g. 'for a fleet listing use list_robots instead'), so it stays just below the top band.

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