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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value beyond them: results contain no prices, availability comes from the shop or an inquiry, fact texts stay in canonical Polish, and output may render as robot cards with an inquiry button depending on host support.

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 dense sentences, catalog scope front-loaded, then the price caveat and rendering note. Slightly long enumeration of products, but every clause carries information an agent can use.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what each entry contains (type, purpose, key specs, shop links) and that prices are absent. A brief note on result volume or whether all robots return by default would close the remaining 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% with all four enums fully documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about how type/robot/availability combine or interact (e.g. 'used' appearing in both enums), leaving only the schema as guidance.

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 concrete verb+resource: lists the MERA robot catalog, enumerating rent-with-operator units (G1, H2) and for-sale units (humanoids, quadrupeds, industrial, hand, teleop kit, used G1 EDU), plus the fields returned. The scope is very clear, though sibling differentiation is only implicit (the 'no prices, use shop or inquiry' clause gestures at request_quote/open_inquiry_form without naming them).

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 implied: call this to browse the robot catalog, and note that pricing/availability requires the shop or an inquiry. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so an agent must infer that pricing questions route elsewhere.

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