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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior beyond those: the results are geometry-free in-design connections rather than an authoritative manufacturer pinout, large designs may be truncated with a flag, and nets may still be computing so the agent should not infer connectivity. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage trigger and every sentence adds operational value: output modes, caveats about truncation and manufacturer pinouts, preference guidance, and sibling routing. It is dense but well structured and contains no filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete: it explains when to use the tool, how each mode changes the response, what to do while nets are computing, and which sibling tools cover other intents. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's return shape: ref returns a component plus its nets and connected pins, net returns the pins on that net, and no focus returns a bounded overview. It also reinforces the 'at most one of ref or net' constraint and gives concrete examples like U1 and GND.

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 clearly states the tool reads a public board's connectivity: how it is wired, component connections, and net pins. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly routing purchasing questions to get_bom and raw source questions to read_file, and by differentiating overview, ref, and net outputs.

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 opens with a concrete trigger: 'Use when the user asks how a public board is wired, what a component connects to, or which pins are on a net.' It also provides explicit exclusions and alternatives, such as 'Use get_bom for purchasing and read_file for raw source,' and advises preferring focused ref or net queries over repeated overviews.

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