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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail the annotations do not carry: an access right is required on the requested robot. It still leaves 'active' undefined and says nothing about result volume or scoping.

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 with no waste, and the resource scope leads before the access prerequisite. Nothing padding, though it is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves.

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 no descriptions on either parameter, the description is the only prose available and it stops at scope plus auth. It should at minimum define 'active' and explain include_global's default-on behavior, which materially changes the returned signal set.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only obliquely justifies robot_id ('one robot's software stack'). The include_global parameter (default true) is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to know whether global-level signals are included or how to exclude them.

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 names a specific resource: active supply chain signals scoped to one robot's software stack. This implicitly distinguishes it from the hardware_ and mechanical_ signal siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with software_list_signals, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tool named. An agent must guess whether to use this or software_list_signals to find the same information, and nothing says what 'active' excludes.

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