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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the remaining burden is low. The description adds a genuine non-schema fact: an access right on the requested robot is required. It stops short of stating failure modes or rate limits, so not 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 sentences, zero filler, and the analytic scope is front-loaded ahead of the access prerequisite. Everything stated earns its place.

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 usefully names what the profile contains (jurisdiction concentration, lock-in, export control, cloud dependency) and the auth precondition. It could say more about the response shape or what a robot_id looks like, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'for one robot' and 'access right on the robot requested' do imply that robot_id identifies a single robot and requires permission on that specific one, but no format or ID-source guidance is given.

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+resource ('dependency analysis ... for one robot, built on its software stack') and enumerates the four analysis dimensions (jurisdiction concentration, lock-in, export control, cloud dependency). The 'software' qualifier clearly separates it from the hardware_ and mechanical_ dependency-profile siblings.

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?

Implies usage via 'for one robot' and names the access-right prerequisite, but never says when to prefer this over hardware_get_dependency_profile, mechanical_get_dependency_profile, or software_compare_robots, nor any when-not conditions.

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