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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting the catalogue is identical to the hardware and software variants, and highlights mechanical filtering capabilities. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe output format or pagination.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then give usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description provides only a high-level overview. It mentions mechanical status and payload as filters but omits details on other filters like country, category, or scope. While it clarifies the catalogue is shared across variants, it lacks enough to fully guide an agent on input configuration or expected output.

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% with 8 parameters. The description only hints at 'mechanical-profile status and payload' but does not explain any of the parameters (e.g., pays, categorie, in_scope_only, limit, offset). Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description should compensate, but it only partially does, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool lists the robot catalogue with filters, specifically mentioning mechanical-profile status and payload. It distinguishes from hardware and software variants by explicitly naming them and stating this one is for mechanical coverage, which differentiates it from siblings like hardware_list_robots and software_list_robots.

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?

It explicitly says 'call one, not three' and 'Pick this one to filter on mechanical coverage,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and alternative identification. This directly addresses selection among the three list variants.

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