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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context about requiring an access right and returning a refusal naming the robot if unauthorized, which is not covered by annotations.

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 two succinct sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second covers authorization. No fluff, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the key 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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential output content and authorization behavior. The only gap is the lack of explanation for the blocks_only parameter, which leaves some incompleteness, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions the output content (functional blocks, components, suppliers) but does not clarify the role of robot_id (though fairly obvious) or blocks_only (unclear whether it filters to only blocks or something else). The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a semiconductor bill of materials for one robot, listing functional blocks, components, and suppliers. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like hardware_get_robot (generic info) and hardware_compare_robots (comparison), making the specific purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve a BOM for a specific robot) and even notes the access-right requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling names and the specificity of the BOM make the intended use obvious.

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