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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description usefully adds that no nudging/legalization occurs and that unknown references are returned in 'missing'. It does not state whether existing placements are overwritten or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Very dense and front-loaded — the core verb and coordinate semantics come first, then relative moves, then failure behavior. It is a long semicolon-chained sentence, but almost every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's note about 'missing' references and the schema's wait_s/get_board_job follow-up cover the main return paths. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of response shape beyond 'missing' and no limits on partial failure.

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 67% and the placement sub-fields have no schema descriptions at all, so the description carries the load: it explains mm origin coordinates with y growing downward, KiCad-convention rotation, F/B side flipping, locking, and the relative dx/dy/drot variants. This adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Put footprints exactly where given') and immediately pins down the coordinate frame, rotation convention and side semantics. The phrase 'Nothing is nudged or legalized' implicitly distinguishes it from auto_place/anneal_place, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: exact placement, relative moves via dx_mm/dy_mm/drot_deg, and routes overlap checking to run_drc. It never explicitly names when to prefer auto_place or anneal_place over this tool, so no true alternatives/exclusions are stated.

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