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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the bounded 'software/model evidence only' scope, a 65536-byte request cap, a 5 s execution window, and the 'candidate only when verified' verdict semantics. It does, however, leave undisclosed that this schema is a paid buyer-job submission (required max_total_price), which is a notable behavioral gap.

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?

Tight, front-loaded Problem/Input/Result/Limits framing with no filler; every clause conveys distinct operational information.

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 restated, and the description still covers problem, input, result, and hard limits for a nested-object tool. The main omission is that this is a paid job submission requiring 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%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully maps the request payload (trajectory, maximum speed, maximum acceleration) but leaves the required top-level parameters schema_version, idempotency_key, and especially the fixed max_total_price completely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource: accept or reject a bounded trajectory against caller-supplied kinematic limits, plus the expected outputs (typed verdict, measured metrics). It is clearly a validation tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like robotics_validate_trajectory_timing_v1 or robotics_check_collision_constraints_v1.

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' line implies when the tool applies (checking a bounded trajectory against kinematic limits), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as the timing or collision sibling validators.

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