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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the privacy boundary: no owner and no exact location, with location approximated to about 11 km. It also clarifies that asking prices are display-only and that filtering does not modify anything, which adds useful behavioral context beyond structured annotations.

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 key constraint, no account needed, is front-loaded, and the description is compact overall. The long enumeration of returned fields is dense and partly duplicated by the output schema, but it remains a single efficient paragraph rather than sprawling prose.

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 rich annotations, a present output schema, and 89% schema description coverage, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: access model, privacy limits, approximate location, display-only pricing, and non-mutating filter behavior. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 high at 89%, so the input schema already does most of the parameter documentation. The description only says filters narrow results and does not add filter-specific meaning beyond that baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns approved robot listings with a detailed public-field inventory. The title and description clearly establish the browse/list scope and the no-account condition, enough to distinguish it from transactional siblings such as request_lease or activate_lease.

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?

It clearly states the usage context: no account is needed, filters narrow results, and nothing is changed. It does not explicitly compare this tool with the more task-oriented sibling find_robot_for_task, so the alternative-routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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