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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something the annotations do not: an authorization precondition and the aggregate-across-panel semantics, which materially affects how results should be interpreted.

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 waste; the scope statement and the access precondition are both front-loaded before any reader could form wrong assumptions.

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 nine-parameter filtering tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition omits the two things an agent most needs: what the filter values look like and what the feed returns. Authorization and scope are covered well, but the filtering surface is left entirely to guesswork.

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% across nine parameters, so the description carries the full burden and compensates only with the generic word "filters." It never explains what domain, signal_type, jurisdiction, min_severity, component_type, active_only, or the limit/offset paging pair actually do.

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 concrete verb and resource ("List software supply chain signals") and pins down scope as panel-wide, which distinguishes it from the per-robot siblings like software_get_robot_signals and from hardware_/mechanical_list_signals by domain. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the family split from the software_ prefix.

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?

"Panel-wide, not per robot" is an explicit usage boundary plus the prerequisite "requires an access right on at least one robot," which tells the agent both when to pick this tool and what gates it. There is no guidance on when to prefer the per-robot variant or on how to page through large result sets.

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