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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine semantic caveat about what results mean (recipes vs references, discovery != verification), but says nothing about pagination despite limit/offset, or result ordering/truncation behavior.

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 core action and then the result caveat. No filler, no restating of the tool name, every clause 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?

For a 14-parameter search tool with no output schema and 14% schema coverage, this is far too thin. Filter semantics, pagination behavior, result shape and the meaning of the two query modes are left entirely to inference.

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 14% across 14 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden and largely fails to. It hints at the recipe/reference distinction (mapping loosely to the kind enum) but leaves robot, runtime, os, python, controller, hub_commit, architecture, observation, runtime_version, limit and offset completely unexplained.

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: 'Search pinned robot code across robots and runtimes.' It also characterizes the result set (prepared recipes vs upstream references), which separates it conceptually from inspect_robot_skill and get_hub_capabilities, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to siblings such as inspect_robot_skill for drilling into a hit. The only contextual note ('source discovery is not runtime verification') is an interpretation caveat, not usage direction.

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