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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns owner-allowed commands with descriptions, parameters, examples, and available feeds, which is meaningful because there is no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'Read-only' establishes safety immediately, then the return contents are described without filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and the lease/owner scoping. It could be stronger by explicitly routing users to send_robot_command for executing commands, but otherwise it covers the essential context.

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% for the single lease_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description reinforces that the listing is scoped to the lease, but adds no format or validation details beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List robot commands') and scopes it to commands the owner allows on a lease. It clearly describes what is returned, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling send_robot_command.

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 read-only nature and lease scope imply discovery use, but the description never states when to use this versus send_robot_command or any other sibling. The intended usage is inferable but not explicit.

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