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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotated behavior: it is panel-wide and requires an access right on at least one robot, which affects whether a call will fail. It does not cover pagination behavior or defaults, which keeps it below a 5.

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 resource and scope. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, no enums and zero schema descriptions, the definition is materially incomplete: the filter vocabulary, accepted severities/signal types, and pagination semantics are absent. Annotations cover the safety profile, but an agent cannot construct a targeted query from this description alone.

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?

All 8 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It only says 'with filters' and never names a single filter (region, block_id, active_only, signal_type, min_severity, component_type) or explains limit/offset. The agent must guess the meaning and accepted values of every argument.

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 verb (List) and resource (mechanical supply chain, performance and operational signals) plus the scope (across the panel). The clause 'Panel-wide, not per robot' distinguishes it from the sibling mechanical_get_robot_signals, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Panel-wide, not per robot' and the access prerequisite, which steers an agent away from the per-robot variant. However, no sibling is named explicitly (hardware_list_signals, software_list_signals), and there is no statement of when this feed is the right choice versus the domain-specific bundles.

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