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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious interpretive caveat — that modeled sphere validation is not safety certification or permission to actuate — which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about what the status values convey, whether access is limited to the caller's own jobs, or any rate/auth constraints.

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 short sentences with the capability stated first and the caveat second — appropriately front-loaded and free of filler. The disclaimer, while relevant, is the weaker half and would be better placed after a clearer scope statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is rightly omitted, and a single required parameter keeps the surface small. Still, for a status tool the description never indicates what statuses are observable or how the call relates to submit_cloud_motion and resolve_cloud_motion, leaving the job lifecycle unclear.

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% for the single job_id parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. "Owner-scoped" does add real meaning by implying job_id must reference a job the caller owns, but there is no statement about format, where the ID comes from, or what happens for a non-owned or unknown job_id.

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?

"Read owner-scoped motion status" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (motion status) plus a scoping qualifier, so the agent knows it is a read of job motion state. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_cloud_motion_result, get_cloud_motion_receipt, or get_robotics_job_status, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the other get_cloud_motion_* siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g., must the job already be submitted or resolved?). The only guidance is the implicit "owner-scoped" qualifier, which a reader must infer.

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