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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the burden is lower. The description adds that some stages are "each stage you do yourself," implying other stages are automated by sibling tools, which is useful framing, but says nothing about the guide's format, size, or 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?

A single dense sentence with the scope front-loaded and the usage rule last; every clause carries information. The nested parentheticals make it slightly hard to scan for a specific stage.

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 single-enum guide lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the workflow framing, the stage vocabulary, and the when-to-call rule. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though the return shape is left implicit.

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% with a clear enum, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to four of the five enum values (synthesis = writing the SKiDL schematic, review = design review, etc.) that the bare enum strings do not convey. "overview" is left unexplained, a minor gap.

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 states the resource clearly: end-to-end guidance for Koppar plus the per-stage instructions, and enumerates the stages (research, synthesis, review, board) that match the schema enum. It never uses a retrieval verb like "returns" or "fetches", but the content is unmistakable and no sibling tool overlaps with it.

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?

"Read the stage guide before doing that stage" gives an explicit trigger tied to each stage, which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of stating exclusions or pointing to alternative tools for stages handled automatically, so it is clear context rather than complete routing.

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