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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that only 'active' and 'affecting' signals are returned and that an access right is required, which is not captured in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second states a prerequisite. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite, ensuring minimal viability. However, it omits the semantics of 'include_global' and leaves the term 'active' ambiguous (e.g., time window or status), so the agent may not fully understand the response scope. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with a low-coverage schema.

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 explain either parameter. 'robot_id' can be inferred from 'one robot', but 'include_global' is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unsure whether global supply chain signals are included by default or how the flag modifies results. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the resource ('active supply chain signals') and the scope ('one robot's software stack'), which differentiates it from hardware/mechanical variants. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list'); the verb is only present in the tool name, so the description alone doesn't fully state the action.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires an access right on the robot requested'), which is a useful usage condition. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of siblings like hardware_get_robot_signals or software_list_signals, though the 'software stack' and 'one robot' wording imply the appropriate context.

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