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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing the input prerequisite and the shape of the data returned, though it says nothing about whether the plan is recomputed, error behavior, or staleness.

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 two compact sentences with no filler; the returned-content list is front-loaded and the prerequisite is placed at the end. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but every clause carries 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?

For a read-only getter with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating what the call returns (computed minimum board, pad density/fine-pitch/fanout stats, parts and nets, user instructions, plan schema rules) and states the precondition. An agent has enough to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around recomputation and failure modes.

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?

There is a single parameter (design_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its format and provenance ('returned by create_design or list_designs'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 definition frames itself as 'What the board plan is decided from' and enumerates the returned content (minimum board, board stats, parts/nets, instructions, plan schema), which conveys the resource. However, it never states a plain verb ('returns'/'retrieves') and gives no differentiation from adjacent-sounding siblings like get_board_info or board_census, leaving the agent to infer the exact role.

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?

It gives one useful precondition, 'Needs an accepted schematic,' which implies the phase in which the tool is callable. It says nothing about when to prefer this over get_board_info, board_census, or get_workflow_guide, so selection among siblings must be inferred.

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