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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns the same catalogue as the mechanical and software variants, and it supports filtering by semiconductor-layer scope. It does not mention pagination or default behavior, but the annotations plus the explicit 'call one, not three' note provide solid transparency.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the resource and filters, the second warns against calling sibling variants, and the third gives the selection criterion. The key differentiator is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the relationship to sibling tools, and the main filter dimension. It does not document all 8 parameters, but the tool has no required parameters and the description gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly for the intended use case. A 4 is appropriate given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'semiconductor-layer scope and payload' which maps to scope_status/in_scope_only and min_payload, but it does not explain the other parameters (pays, limit, offset, categorie, min_score). The description adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, but with 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it only partially compensates.

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 verb ('List'), a resource ('robot catalogue'), and the distinguishing feature ('semiconductor-layer scope and payload'). It also explicitly names the sibling variants (mechanical and software) and clarifies that this tool is the one to pick for semiconductor-layer filtering, which differentiates it from the other list_robots tools.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Returns the same catalogue as the mechanical and software variants - call one, not three' and 'Pick this one to filter on whether a robot is in scope for the semiconductor layer.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternatives, so an agent knows not to call the sibling list_robots tools redundantly.

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