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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the authorization requirement and the exact failure behavior (a refusal naming the robot). It does not describe the response shape or whether suppliers are always populated.

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 tight sentences: content first, prerequisite and failure mode second. No filler, and the key scoping information 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 should convey more about what comes back, and the undocumented blocks_only flag leaves an agent guessing whether the result is a full BOM or a blocks-only view. Auth and read-only semantics are adequately covered.

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 0% for two parameters. The description never mentions robot_id or, more importantly, blocks_only — a filtering flag whose effect is only vaguely hinted at by the phrase 'functional blocks, components, suppliers'. The most consequential parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 and enumerates its content: 'Semiconductor bill of materials for one robot: functional blocks, components, suppliers.' The 'Semiconductor' qualifier implicitly separates it from the mechanical_/software_ counterparts in the sibling list, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 (fetch the BOM for one robot) and states a prerequisite access right, but never says when to prefer this over hardware_get_block_analysis or hardware_get_dependency_profile, which clearly overlap with the 'functional blocks' content it advertises.

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