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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the $0.01 USDC per-job cost, but says nothing about whether execution is synchronous or async, how long it blocks, or what happens on failure.

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, no filler, with the task action front-loaded and the cost caveat attached to the outcome sentence. Tight, though the second sentence's "for your next workflow step" is slightly vague padding.

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-value explanation is not owed. But with 6 required params at 0% coverage, a nested free-form request payload, and a sibling set containing submit/quote/status/result tools, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a call or know whether this runs synchronously.

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 6 required parameters, including a free-form nested `request` object and an opaque `capability_id`. The description documents none of them: it never explains how to populate `request`, where capability IDs come from, or what `max_total_price` bounds, so it fails to compensate 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 concrete action (send Robotics inputs, receive structured findings) and enumerates the capability domains served: frame validation, trajectory diagnosis, controller comparison, optimization. However, it never distinguishes this from siblings submit_robotics_job or quote_robotics_job, so an agent cannot tell which of the three job-lifecycle tools to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated capability types ("frame validation, trajectory diagnosis..."), which suggests when the tool is relevant. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of whether a prior quote is needed, and no routing to submit_robotics_job or the status/result polling siblings.

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