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 behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses return contents (spec sheet, sub-scores, cited sources), but does not address read-only nature, error behavior for unknown models, authentication, or other operational traits.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned payload and lookup key. No wasted 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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned and how to identify the mower. Minor gaps remain around miss/error behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 100% and the single 'query' parameter is already documented with examples. The description only restates that lookup is by model name or slug, adding no format or matching details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('robot lawn mower'), and scope ('one'), plus what is returned: full spec sheet, sub-scores, and cited sources. This clearly separates it from list_robot_mowers and compare_robot_mowers by cardinality, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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: call this when you need details for a single mower identified by model name or slug. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance naming list, compare, or recommend tools.

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