get_robot_mower

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return contents (spec sheet, sub-scores, cited sources) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not describe behavior on unrecognized model names, ambiguous matches, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key return information and then states the selection criterion, saying everything necessary in few words.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and how to identify the target mower. It does not address not-found or ambiguity behavior, but the core information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the query parameter with examples. The description slightly reinforces the parameter's role as the identifier for a single mower, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the structured schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full spec sheet, sub-scores and cited sources for one robot lawn mower'), and the qualifier 'for one' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that list, compare, or recommend mowers. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 description clearly establishes the context: use this when you need detailed information for a single known mower identified by model name or slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the 'one robot lawn mower' scope make the intended use relatively clear.

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