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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: all three variant tools return the identical catalogue, which prevents redundant calls. It says nothing about default result size, pagination behaviour, or ordering, which matter for a list tool with limit/offset.

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 with the scope, the deduplication rule, and the selection rule front-loaded in that order. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

Routing and duplication behaviour are well covered, but this is an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, and the description addresses roughly two of those parameters only vaguely. An agent still has to guess at filtering and paging semantics, so the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It alludes to status and payload filters, but leaves `pays`, `categorie`, `min_score`, `in_scope_only`, and the limit/offset paging semantics — including the meaning of the -1 sentinel on min_score and min_payload — entirely unexplained.

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 (list the robot catalogue) plus the filtering axis (mechanical-profile status and payload), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the hardware and software list variants. An agent can identify this tool without opening the 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?

"Returns the same catalogue as the hardware and software variants - call one, not three" is unusually strong routing guidance, and "pick this one to filter on mechanical coverage" gives an explicit selection condition. It stops short of naming `hardware_list_robots`/`software_list_robots` directly and gives no when-not-to-use case beyond the variant choice.

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