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

Annotations give the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds concrete limits beyond them: software/model evidence only, a 65536-byte request cap, and a 5-second execution bound. It does not, however, explain the job-submission/lifecycle behavior implied by idempotency_key and max_total_price.

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?

Uses a terse Problem/Input/Result/Limits structure with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information, though the labeled fragments are dense rather than flowing prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers problem, input, result and limits. However, for a job-submission tool with a nested request object and four required params, it omits the async/paid-job context the schema implies, leaving it only minimally sufficient.

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 carry the burden. It partially names request contents (samples, model, rules) but leaves the other required top-level parameters (schema_version, idempotency_key, max_total_price) unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (reconstruct) and resource (bounded trajectory) plus the governing model and residual rule, which distinguishes it from siblings like robotics_optimize_trajectory_to_constraints_v1 or robotics_compare_planned_observed_trajectories_v1. It is clear but does not explicitly name those siblings to route the agent.

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 'Problem' framing gives context and the 'Input' line names required data (samples, model, rules), but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many trajectory-related siblings. The agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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