ROBOTio — humanoid robots for events

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the three possible return states and the important fact that a successful check does not reserve the date (holding requires a quote request and payment). That non-binding nature is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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, no filler, with the core capability and its return values front-loaded and the constraint about date holding placed last. Every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the possible return states (available, limited, unavailable), and it covers the key non-obvious constraint about reservation. Minor gaps remain around the robots parameter's behavior and whether the check is instantaneous or queued.

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 67% — date and end_date are documented in the schema, while the robots parameter carries only default/min/max bounds. The description adds a little ('a date (or date range)', 'humanoid robots'), but it does not clarify the robots count semantics beyond what the schema already constrains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (check) and resource (humanoid robot availability) with explicit scope for a single date or a range, and it even enumerates the three possible outcomes. It is clearly separable from get_catalog and request_quote.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing sentence about the date being held only after a quote request and payment hints that this is a pre-quote, non-binding check, but the description never explicitly says 'call this before request_quote' or states any exclusions. The workflow relationship to the sibling tool is left for the agent to infer.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the scope of returned content (pricing is indicative, multi-day events, terms, references), but says nothing about language behavior, result size, or freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifying the resource, followed by a compact content inventory. It reads as a list but every item earns its place by telling the agent what data is available.

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 static catalogue with no output schema, the content inventory plus the readOnlyHint annotation covers what an agent needs to call it. The unexplained lang parameter is the only real omission.

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?

There is one parameter (lang, enum en/cs, default en) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions language selection despite the catalogue being localized. The enum values are fairly self-evident, but the definition does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (ROBOTio catalogue of humanoid robots for rent) and enumerates its contents — events, pricing, terms, references, contact — so an agent can tell what it retrieves. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with check_availability or request_quote, which is what would push it to a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the sibling set (check_availability, request_quote) makes this look like the browse-first step, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or how it relates to those siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the outside-world send is known. The description adds meaningful context the annotations do not: the consent-gated workflow, the 24-hour e-mail reply, and the non-binding nature. It stops short of stating whether the request can be retracted or duplicated, which is the only remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and its destination, followed by the consent requirement and the non-binding caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 16-parameter, low-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the consent and safety context well but leaves the parameter surface largely unexplained. An agent would still have to infer what most fields should contain, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 38% across 16 parameters, so the description would need to compensate. It mentions only name and e-mail in passing and explains nothing about event_date format, robots limits, wants_show constraints, language, or the agent/venue/guests fields – leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Send a quote request to ROBOTio') and immediately clarifies the nature of the action ('non-binding request, not a booking'), which separates it from a booking tool. An agent can tell this apart from check_availability and get_catalog without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit pre-condition workflow: show the user a summary and send only after explicit agreement to share name and e-mail. It also states the expected response channel and latency (e-mail within 24 hours), so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate and what to expect.

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