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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds context about 'active' signals and the access right requirement, but does not elaborate on behavior like empty results, pagination, or error conditions. This adds some value beyond annotations but is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose before adding the access requirement. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and an access constraint. However, it leaves include_global unexplained and does not describe the return structure, making it only minimally adequate.

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%, and the description does not mention include_global at all. It implicitly references robot_id via 'one robot' but lacks explicit parameter explanations, especially for include_global which is not self-evident.

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 what the tool returns: active supply chain signals affecting one robot's mechanical BOM. The scope is specific ('one robot', 'mechanical BOM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hardware_get_robot_signals or software_get_robot_signals.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mechanical_list_signals or mechanical_get_robot). It mentions an access right requirement, but not the appropriate use case or exclusions.

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