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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the full return contents and the conditional behavior of include_belege, including the trade-off of a significantly larger response with individual citations instead of summaries. It does not mention errors, permissions, or rate limits, but for a simple read-by-id tool the behavioral disclosure is strong.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence giving the full purpose and content inventory, and the second sentence explaining the optional parameter effect. Every sentence earns its place; the bilingual suffix is a minor redundancy but not harmful.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough information about what the tool returns and how include_belege changes the response. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the response is a record/JSON object, but the phrase 'Datensatz-Eintrag' and the content list already convey this adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents both id and include_belege in detail. The description repeats the same semantics (slug from search_robots and the effect of include_belege) without adding meaningful new meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 this tool retrieves the full record for exactly one robot by ID, listing the specific content areas (prices, technology, RadarScore axes, autonomy status, evidence summaries, audit data). This verb+resource framing distinguishes it from siblings like search_robots, compare_robots, and dataset_info.

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 context is implied by the note that the id comes from search_robots, suggesting this tool is used after searching to fetch full details for a single model. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_robot over compare_robots or dataset_info, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative guidance.

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