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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing what the response contains, including edge states such as 'accepted or the last blocking error' and the presence of a next-step recommendation. It stops short of describing pagination or refresh/caching behavior.

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?

One densely packed sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a scannable list of returned sections. Every clause maps to a real output area; nothing is wasted, though the fragmentary 'Where a design stands:' construction is slightly informal.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the report sections an agent can expect. Combined with read-only annotations and a simple, fully documented single id parameter, an agent has what it needs to call the tool and interpret the result.

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) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the id comes from create_design or list_designs. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable baseline behavior when the schema already carries the semantics.

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 a concrete resource ('a design') and enumerates exactly what is reported (brief, schematic state, ERC, part/net counts, board run, readable files, next step), so an agent knows immediately this is a design status read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_board_status, get_board_context, or get_fab_status.

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 content: you call it to see 'where a design stands' and the phrase 'the next step' hints it feeds a workflow decision. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many get_* status/info siblings, so the agent must infer routing on its own.

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