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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to spend its words on the return shape: localized price with an approximation flag, what the price includes, status, the last-checked date, and the Antarum page link. That last-checked date is genuinely useful behavioral context about data freshness that no annotation conveys. It does not mention result ordering or how the default limit of 8 interacts with paging.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and followed by the return payload — the right order for an agent deciding whether to call. The filter enumeration is slightly listy and could be tighter, but 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?

With 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and only 63% schema coverage, the tool needs the description to explain what comes back — and it does, describing price, status, verification date and page link. Gaps are minor: no mention of the default limit of 8, the default language, or ordering, all of which affect interpretation of results.

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?

At 63% schema coverage the baseline is a 3, and the description roughly matches that: it lists the filter dimensions (free text, category, use, price limit, status, country) but omits limit and language entirely. It does add one useful linkage by tying country to per-country pricing, though the schema already documents both country and max_price currency semantics, so the marginal meaning is modest.

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 (search) and resource (Antarum's catalog of 120+ robots) and enumerates the filter dimensions, so an agent immediately knows this is a multi-criteria catalog search rather than a single-record lookup. It never names a sibling (get_robot, compare_robots, find_rental, send_inquiry) to draw the boundary explicitly, so it stops short of 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 implied by the filter list and the fact that all 8 parameters are optional, suggesting a browse-then-filter pattern. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_robot for a known robot or compare_robots for a head-to-head, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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