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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the access-right requirement on the named robot, or on any robot when none is given, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 block scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description needs to explain both the block_id input and what the analysis returns. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently beyond the permission note.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that robot_id is optional ('when none is'), but says nothing about what block_id is, its format, or where to obtain a valid value.

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 (analyse) and resource (one functional block) and scopes it to the semiconductor layer, which separates it from mechanical_get_block_analysis and software_get_block_analysis. It does not say what an 'analysis' actually produces, so the purpose is clear in domain terms but not in output terms.

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?

Implies usage through scope ('one functional block of the semiconductor layer') and adds a real constraint ('a single robot at a time'), but never names the mechanical/software sibling variants or states when one should be preferred over them. Adequate but leaves alternative-selection to inference.

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