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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are geometry-free, reflect in-design rather than authoritative manufacturer pinout, may be truncated for very large designs (with flagging), and nets may still be computing. It is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and flags caveats that an agent must know to interpret results correctly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: use-case triggers, output semantics, caveats, preference guidance, sibling routing, and status handling. It is front-loaded with the most important usage trigger and maintains a clean structure that an agent can quickly scan.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: when to use it, what each parameter mode returns, caveats about accuracy and truncation, and fallback behavior when nets are still computing. There are no critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the behavioral meaning of each calling mode: no focus returns a bounded overview, ref returns a component plus its nets and other pins, and net returns pins on that net. It also reinforces the 'at most one of ref or net' constraint with examples, adding genuine value 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: reading a public board's schematic connectivity inside an EDA design, and explicitly contrasts it with siblings get_bom and read_file. It precisely distinguishes why an agent would choose this over alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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 begins with explicit triggers ('when the user asks how a public board is wired, what a component connects to, or which pins are on a net'), gives preference guidance for focused ref/net calls over overviews, names get_bom and read_file as alternatives, and explains how to handle in-progress net computation. This is comprehensive guidance.

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