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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important requirement of an access right on the robot, which is a behavioral constraint not covered by annotations. It does not describe pagination or response format, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundancy. Every word adds value, and it efficiently conveys the tool's scope and a key prerequisite.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough guidance for correct invocation. It lacks details on layer and include_global, and the return structure is unspecified. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention robot_id, layer, or include_global at all. The description only says 'one robot', which vaguely hints at robot_id, but fails to explain the other two parameters, leaving them ambiguous.

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 tool's function: it returns active supply chain signals affecting a specific robot's semiconductor BOM. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hardware_list_signals (which likely lists all signals) and hardware_get_robot (which gets robot details) by explicitly mentioning 'one robot' and the semiconductor BOM scope.

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 for a single robot with a semiconductor BOM, providing clear context that this is not a list-all tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance that would merit a 5.

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