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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover side effects. It usefully discloses output scope: specs, pricing, viability score, and a boolean-like teardown existence, plus consistency of commercial fields across variants.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary output, and every sentence earns its place. The variant clarification is especially useful without adding bloat.

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?

Given the low complexity, strong annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the exact resource, output categories, coverage layer, and relationship to sibling variants. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool.

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?

The schema has only one self-explanatory required parameter, robot_id, with 0% description coverage. The description adds only that the tool targets 'one robot,' which helps but does not fully compensate for missing parameter details such as source or format of robot_id.

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 states a specific, concrete purpose: returning a commercial profile of one robot with specs, pricing, and viability score, plus whether a semiconductor teardown exists. It also distinguishes the three get_robot variants by mentioning that the commercial fields are identical and the layer flag is the only difference.

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?

There is clear context: this tool is for the commercial profile plus semiconductor teardown existence, and the variant note explains that the three get_robot tools differ only by layer. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like mechanical_get_robot or software_get_robot, but the layer distinction provides enough guidance for tool selection.

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