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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the disclosure of what it actually evaluates (serious DRC errors, unconnected items) and that it explains failures. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that answers the primary question first and appends the failure case. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 contract, and it does convey that the result is a boolean-like verdict plus reasons for failure. It stops short of describing the shape of those reasons or how this gates downstream fabrication/ordering steps, leaving a minor gap.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, including its pattern and provenance from create_design or list_designs. The description adds nothing about design_id, so baseline 3 applies since 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?

States a specific resource (fab release status) and defines the criteria being evaluated: zero serious DRC errors and nothing unconnected. This clearly distinguishes it from pure checkers like run_drc or check_net_rules, though it does not name a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

The 'earned its fab files' framing implies the tool is a pre-fabrication gate check, so usage is inferable. However, it never states when to call it versus get_board_status, run_drc, or the upload/order tools, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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