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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real content beyond that by describing the shape of each entry (units, allowed values, per-robot publish counts), which tells the agent what it will actually receive.

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 compact sentences, no filler. The purpose and contents come first, with the parameter guidance tucked at the end, so the value proposition is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a summary level. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, missing only a note on default behavior when category is omitted and what category values are acceptable.

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% and the single category parameter is an unconstrained string with no enum, so the schema gives no semantics. The description supplies the meaning ('see only the figures that apply to it'), which compensates well for the gap, though it does not hint at valid category values or that omission returns everything.

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 resource ('the figures we record'), enumerates what each entry carries (canonical units, allowed values, publish counts), and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool find_robots as the source of the keys it filters on. An agent can distinguish this from find_robots or search_robots without opening either 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?

The description implies usage ('the keys find_robots filters on') and gives the effect of the optional category parameter, but never states explicitly when to call this versus its siblings or what happens if you omit category. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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