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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: an authorization requirement, the exact refusal behavior when it is missing, and the failure-inclusive evidence model, which tells the agent results may legitimately look negative.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the core deliverable comes first, then the label taxonomy, then the evidence detail, then the authorization caveat. The parenthetical label list is long but each item is load-bearing since the labels drive interpretation of the output.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape: per-capability labels, the enumerated label values, and the fields of each dated observation (source, conditions, control mode). Combined with the auth requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it and read the result sensibly.

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 0% and the single required robot_id has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the parameter means the specific robot requested and attaches the access-right constraint to it, though it adds no syntax or identifier-format detail.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource statement: what one robot has actually been seen doing, plus the evidence behind it. It clearly separates itself from the hardware_/mechanical_/software_ family, which describe declared or configured state, by emphasizing observed, dated evidence with failures included.

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 states a prerequisite (an access right on the requested robot, with a refusal naming the robot otherwise), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as hardware_get_robot, and offers no exclusions or alternative routing, so the comparison is left to inference.

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