list_robot_mowers

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond what the schema already encodes. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, how the default limit interacts with the full catalog, or what the response shape looks like.

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 tight sentences with the resource and dataset front-loaded and the filter/sort surface enumerated immediately after. No filler, though the second sentence reads as a schema restatement rather than new 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input surface adequately but says nothing about the returned records (fields, pagination, tie-breaking), which the agent would need since no output schema exists.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with examples and sort-direction semantics in the schema itself. The description restates the filter axes (brand, navigation, price, coverage, slope, score) but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail, making the baseline 3 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 (list) and resource (robot lawn mowers) plus the source dataset, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_robot_mower or compare_robot_mowers, but the 'list and filter' framing is clear enough to distinguish it from a single-record lookup.

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/sort enumeration — this is the tool for browsing or narrowing the catalog. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over recommend_robot_mower or compare_robot_mowers, 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.