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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the permission requirement, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what 'active' means, how signals are filtered, or the result shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the access prerequisite. No waste, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description must carry the definitional burden for layer and include_global, and it does not. For a per-robot analysis tool with an ambiguous 'layer' input, an agent is left guessing at invocation details.

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% across three parameters. The description only implies robot_id ('one robot'); the 'layer' parameter is completely unexplained and 'include_global' defaults are undocumented, so an agent cannot know how these change the result.

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 scope: active supply chain signals affecting one robot's semiconductor BOM. The word 'signals' plus 'semiconductor BOM' and 'one robot' distinguishes it from hardware_list_signals (all robots) and from mechanical_/software_ variants, though it never names those alternatives 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?

'Affecting one robot' implies per-robot usage and 'Requires an access right on the robot requested' adds a real prerequisite. But there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over hardware_list_signals or the mechanical/software signal tools, leaving routing to inference.

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