OpenRobotKits

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add data-shape context, which it does: it discloses that offers are included exhaustively ('every seller offer') and that facts are sourced with links and checked dates. It does not mention error behavior for an unknown slug, but for a read-only detail tool with no output schema this is strong disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with scope ('Full facts for one robot') before listing fields. The field list is dense but every clause maps to real returned content; 'what it is' is the only vague item.

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 one simple parameter, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by enumerating the content categories, including provenance metadata. Missing only edge-case behavior, such as what happens when the slug is not found.

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 slug parameter is already documented with its origin (search_robots) and an example (so-101). The description adds nothing about the slug format or lookup behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Full facts for one robot') and enumerates exactly what is returned (license, difficulty, build time, cost lines, seller offers, sourced facts). It is clearly distinct from search_robots by being a single-entity detail fetch, but it never names or contrasts with where_to_buy even though 'every seller offer' overlaps that sibling's territory.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing appears in the description. An agent must infer that this is a single-robot detail lookup and must go to the schema to learn the slug originates from search_robots. The overlap with where_to_buy is left unresolved.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the result cap (up to 10), the ranking basis (lowest in-stock USD price), and which fields come back (price, stock state, license, page link) — meaningful behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the no-argument shortcut. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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, the description usefully summarizes the return payload and ranking, which is the right call for a simple three-optional-parameter search. The one gap is the hard cap of 10 results with no mention of pagination or how to see more, which an agent will want to know.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them as "words, type or budget." The only added nuance is that max_price is evaluated against an in-stock listing, which is a small but real clarification over the schema.

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 and resource ("Find open-source robot kits") along with the three filter axes (words, type, budget). It implicitly separates itself from get_robot and where_to_buy by being a discovery/search tool, but never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

"Call with no arguments to list everything" is a concrete usage instruction covering the empty-input case, and the filter axes imply when to pass arguments. It stops short of stating when to prefer get_robot or where_to_buy instead, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add retrieval specifics. It does: it discloses the result set ('every seller listing'), the ordering ('in-stock whole kits first') and the returned fields (price, currency, stock, checked date, buy link, seller page), which an agent cannot get from structured fields since there is no output schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed immediately by ordering and returned fields. Nothing is redundant and no clause could be removed without losing signal.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating return fields and result ordering. Minor gaps remain: it does not say whether out-of-stock listings are included alongside in-stock ones, or how many sellers are typically returned.

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 slug parameter is already documented as coming from search_robots, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no extra meaning such as slug format or error behavior on unknown slugs; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb-equivalent ('where_to_buy') plus a precise resource: 'Every seller listing for one robot' with a known ordering. That clearly separates it from get_robot (spec detail) and search_robots (discovery), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 by the name and the phrase 'for one robot' combined with the schema note that the slug comes from search_robots, suggesting a discover-then-purchase flow. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or stated alternative, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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