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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the status actually surfaces (loaded profiles, signal counts, load errors), which is useful behavioral context absent from the annotation set.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the layer scope and the contents of the report front-loaded before the disambiguation note. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what is reported and how it differs from siblings. It stops short of describing the response shape or error behavior, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond scope, which it does by naming the layer.

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 states a specific resource (the SEMICONDUCTOR layer) and enumerates the concrete outputs: profiles loaded, semiconductor signal counts, load errors. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the mechanical_ and software_ status siblings by noting each reports a different layer rather than the same server.

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 line 'One status tool per layer - the three report different layers, not the same server' directly tells an agent when to pick this tool over the sibling status tools. It doesn't cover when to prefer signal-level tools like hardware_get_robot_signals, but the primary ambiguity is resolved.

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