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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that it returns the same catalogue as the hardware/mechanical variants. It does not describe pagination behavior or the effect of in_scope_only defaults, leaving gaps for a read tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its distinguishing scope, followed by the family-routing rule. 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?

With 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and opaque names like pays, min_score and in_scope_only, the description leaves too much undefined for an agent to filter reliably. It should at least explain the non-obvious filters and default behavior.

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?

Eight parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies software_tier (and implies status via 'software-profile status'); pays, limit, offset, categorie, min_score and in_scope_only are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 with filters') and explicitly names the distinguishing scope: filtering by software tier and software-profile status. The sibling variants (hardware/mechanical) are named so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'call one, not three' and 'Pick this one to filter by software tier'. That is a clear selection criterion against the hardware/mechanical siblings. It lacks guidance on when to prefer the catalog variants over the *_get_robot tools, but the within-family routing is strong.

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