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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete limits (65536 request bytes, 5 s execution) and states it is software/model evidence only, which is real behavioral context. Annotations already cover the mutation/idempotency profile, and the description adds the evidence-scope caveat and size/time bounds.

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?

Front-loaded Problem/Input/Result/Limits structure, each line earning its place with no filler. Templates risk being terse, but here it is dense and scannable.

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?

Covers purpose, inputs, result shape, and limits, and an output schema exists so return details need not be explained. But it omits usage routing among numerous robotics siblings and the meaning of the envelope params like max_total_price.

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%, but the schema is essentially an opaque request blob (additionalProperties of arbitrary JSON) plus fixed envelope fields. The description enumerates the meaningful request contents (trajectory, obstacles, robot radius, minimum clearance), which is more than the schema gives, so baseline-3-plus is appropriate.

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 (check) and resource objects (bounded geometry and trajectory against collision/clearance constraints). It is distinguishable from siblings like robotics_optimize_trajectory_to_constraints_v1, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or state the check-vs-optimize distinction.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With many close robotics siblings (validate limits, optimize to constraints), an agent gets nothing to route by.

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