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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety, and it doesn't. Instead it adds real behavior beyond the annotations: an access right is required and the failure mode is a refusal naming the specific robot, plus every fact is returned with who asserts it, an evidence level, a verbatim quote and source, with unknowns explicitly labeled and dated. It stops short of covering pagination or response envelope shape, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose and audience are front-loaded in the first clause, and the long enumeration is dense rather than padded — each listed item is a real returned field. It is a single run-on sentence, which makes the provenance and access-requirement facts slightly harder to extract than they should be.

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 has to describe the payload, and it does so field by field including provenance metadata and the treatment of unknowns. Combined with the annotations and the disclosed access-refusal behavior, an agent knows what it will get and what can go wrong; only the id format and response envelope are left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, and the description never explains robot_id beyond 'of one robot' and 'an access right on the robot requested' — no format, no origin, no hint that access is scoped per robot id. With only one parameter the baseline is high, but the description does little to compensate for the bare 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?

The description names a specific resource (the after-sales support profile of one robot) and enumerates its exact contents — warranty duration and exclusions, dated spare-part offers, maintenance obligations, software subscriptions, EU service, lifecycle, and open diligence questions. That scope is clearly distinct from the hardware/mechanical/software/capabilities sibling profiles, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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: 'for a buyer in Europe' and 'the open questions to ask before signing' signal a pre-purchase diligence scenario, and the access requirement is stated. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no sibling is named as the alternative (e.g. versus software_get_robot_software for update history).

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