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

The description mentions the output (compact rows with prices, total score, autonomy indicator) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but lacks explicit details about side effects or limitations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences in both German and English. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Durchsucht den RadarScore-Datensatz') and efficiently lists the filters and output, with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a search tool: it names the dataset, lists filter criteria, and specifies the output fields. It does not explain edge cases or pagination, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of a detailed schema, it is largely complete. The mention of output details adds value beyond the schema.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters, covering 100% of the schema. The tool description only summarizes these parameters (e.g., 'filters for category, DACH availability') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's function: it searches the RadarScore dataset with filters for category, availability, origin, and price, and returns compact rows with specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_robots, get_robot, or 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?

The description implies that this tool is for searching and filtering robots, which separates it from other tools like get_robot (specific robot) or compare_robots (comparison). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others, making it slightly less explicit than a perfect score.

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