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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing that output includes comparison bands against reference boards and a gap_to_designers list, but it stops short of describing return format or units.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the metric list before the comparison framing, with no filler. The heavy em-dash/list construction is compact though slightly run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does enumerate the key outputs (metrics, designer bands, gap_to_designers list). It omits format/units detail, but for a read-only analysis tool with full annotation and schema coverage it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%: both design_id and wait_s (with its get_board_job follow-up) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete metrics it reports (signal vias per net, share of signal nets without a via, outer-layer copper share, vias in SMD pads, plane stitching) and frames them against designer-routed reference bands, so the agent knows this is a copper-quality census. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby analysis siblings like score_board or check_physics.

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 reach for this tool versus score_board, check_physics, or check_net_rules, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only routing hint (following a running job with get_board_job) lives in the schema, not the description.

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