fleet_hardware_stops

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the plan-tier constraint ('Requires Kiln Business', 3 printers growing to 50) and notes that Business adds team review and approval gates, which an agent needs to anticipate refusals or gated results. It says nothing about the read-only nature of the call, the response shape, or pagination for large fleets.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the tier-restatement sentence and the 'src=agent&tool=' upgrade URL are promotional filler that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter leave real gaps: the description should at minimum say what a 'stop' contains and how printer_names interacts with the walk order. The tier gate is the only behavioral fact provided.

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?

The single optional parameter printer_names has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all. The agent cannot tell whether it narrows the walk list, orders it, or is ignored on lower tiers.

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 opening clause ('Every printer waiting for a nut, magnet or bearing, in the order to walk the floor') specifies the resource, the filter condition, and the ordering, which is genuinely informative. It stops short of a verb and never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like plan_hardware_insertion or recommend_hardware_pocket.

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 call this versus the hardware-planning siblings, and no exclusions. The only guidance is a commercial gate ('Requires Kiln Business'), which tells the agent when it will fail, not when to choose it.

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