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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds above that bar by disclosing the fixed coverage set (UR and ABB) and enumerating the response contents (title, causes, doc link), which the annotations cannot express.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the core meaning and ends with the scope limitation. Slightly awkward phrasing ('a link to the page of the maker's document') but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (title, listed causes, documentation link). Combined with the annotations' safety profile and the schema's parameter docs, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100% and both parameters carry descriptions with concrete examples ('C204A3', 'universal-robots'). The description only loosely adds that 'maker' is limited to UR and ABB, so the structured fields do the heavy lifting; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (look up a robot maker's error code) and immediately enumerates what it returns: the title, the likely causes, and a documentation link. The sibling tools (find_robots, get_robot, search_robots, etc.) all concern robots or parts, so there is no ambiguity an agent could trip over.

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 closing clause 'Currently Universal Robots and ABB' tells the agent exactly when this tool will and will not succeed, which is a real usage constraint. It does not name an alternative for unsupported makers, so it stops short of explicit when-not routing.

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