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.