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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing what is returned — country-specific price, status, check date, key specs, and a comparison page when one exists. It omits edge behavior such as invalid IDs or partial results.

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 dense sentence with the core scope (2-4 robots) front-loaded ahead of the output description. No filler, though the sentence fragment style trades a little readability for brevity.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input scope and expected output fields adequately. It leaves gaps on failure modes (unknown robot name), whether country/language default, and whether the comparison page URL is guaranteed.

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 coverage is 67%, with the array items described as 'Ids or names' and country as an ISO code. The description adds only that the country determines the price shown, and reinforces the 2-4 bound already encoded in minItems/maxItems. Language has no added meaning beyond the enum.

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 the resource (robots) and the operation (two to four side by side) plus the returned fields, so an agent can tell this is a comparison tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_robot or search_robots, but the constraint of 2-4 robots is distinctive enough to disambiguate.

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 implied by 'side by side' and the 2-4 range, which signals a multi-entity comparison rather than a single lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or named alternative (e.g. use get_robot for one robot), so the agent must infer routing.

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