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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an authorization requirement keyed to the robot, including the fallback rule when no robot is given. It does not describe what the analysis returns or how failures surface.

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; the scope constraint is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 read-only analysis call with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and auth but leaves the return payload and id formats unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call with the obvious required block_id, less so to invoke it correctly with an optional robot_id.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: block_id is implied to be one of actuation/structure/energy/perception, and robot_id is implied optional by 'when none is'. It never states accepted id formats, whether block_id is an enum, or that robot_id defaults to an empty string.

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') plus resource ('one mechanical block') and enumerates the four block categories covered. The 'mechanical' prefix and 'single robot at a time' scope let an agent distinguish it from the hardware_ and software_ block-analysis siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage context via the 'single robot at a time' constraint and an explicit prerequisite ('Requires an access right on the robot named, or on at least one robot when none is'). It stops short of naming alternatives such as software_get_block_analysis for non-mechanical blocks, so the agent must infer domain routing from the name.

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