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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, leaving the nature of the operation unexplained; the description fills that in with 'software/model evidence only', a 65536-byte request cap, and a 5 s execution limit. It also previews the verdict space (pass/fail/unsupported), adding behavior beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 Problem/Input/Result/Limits layout is front-loaded and every clause carries information, with no filler sentences. It is telegraphic in places, but nothing is wasted.

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 complex nested-request tool with an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description still covers the input shape, verdict outcomes, and hard limits. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance against the many similar robotics siblings.

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 schema only exposes an opaque request bag plus schema_version, idempotency_key and max_total_price, so the description must carry the load. 'JSON with frame id, length unit, samples, rules' names the meaningful inner payload fields, partly compensating, but gives no types, formats, or constraints for 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 gives a specific verb (diagnose) and resource (bounded trajectory for oscillation, divergence and stability indicators), which clearly separates it from vague siblings. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close neighbors like robotics_validate_closed_loop_stability_v1 or robotics_validate_trajectory_timing_v1, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping robotics validation/diagnosis siblings. The phrase 'this bounded trajectory' implies a precondition but names no exclusions or alternative tool. An agent gets no routing guidance.

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