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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful semantic that results are restricted to *validated* claims, which tells the agent about result trustworthiness. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether the dataset is closed — minor gaps given the strong annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its defining filter, with the locale note kept to a trailing fragment. 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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the key filter semantic, and the locale option. It could say more about result limits/pagination behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the enum and default. The description's '`locale: "fr"` for French' merely restates schema content and adds no new syntax or default behavior beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific resource (robots) plus a discriminating filter criterion (validated claim of household-task handling), which separates it from generic siblings like search_robots. However it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from find_robots_by_capability or find_robots_by_utility, which an agent could easily confuse with 'handle household tasks'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The only usage-like statement is the locale hint, which is parameter help rather than selection guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone when this beats find_robots_by_capability.

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