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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding meaningful behavioral context. It discloses that the response includes lease state, control mode, online/halted status, granted commands, feeds, and whether the robot can accept a command now with the reason if not; the only notable gap is that it does not explain error behavior for invalid leases.

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?

The description is front-loaded with 'Read-only' and then packs the relevant status fields into a single efficient sentence. It is dense but largely free of waste, though the long enumerated clause could be slightly easier to scan if structured.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what status information is returned, and it does so with a detailed list of lease, robot, command, and feed status fields. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's value and call it with a lease_id, though it does not specify the exact response shape or failure cases.

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 100%, with lease_id clearly typed and described as 'Lease id.' The description adds only the ownership implication 'One of your leases' and does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific resource and scope: status for one of the caller's leases and its associated robot. It lists the concrete status dimensions returned, so an agent can tell this is a read-only status lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_lease or list_robot_commands.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'One of your leases and its robot' and the detailed status fields, which suggests when an agent would want this tool. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives such as get_lease for lease-only details.

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