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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that this is an expensive shared real kicad-cli run, that it can return status 'running' on a busy queue, that results should later be read via get_checks, and that custom rules results are never stored as if published by a fab. These are significant behavioral details the annotations do not convey.

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 economically written, front-loading the triggering condition and the core action before diving into cost and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value: use condition, what it runs, cost/shared nature, possible async result, and an explicit exclusion.

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 tool with an output schema and three parameters, the description covers the invocation trigger, alternative tools, async behavior, cost implications, and parameter relationships. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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?

Even though the schema already documents all parameters, the description adds meaningful semantics: vendor id must come from list_fab_profiles, rules are custom in-house limits expressed in millimetres, and rules and vendor are mutually exclusive. It also explains the storage implication of custom rules, which is not present in 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 opens with a concrete verb-resource pair ('Runs KiCad's own DRC and ERC') and immediately distinguishes the tool from get_checks by stating it is for when checks have not yet been run. It also clarifies the optional fab-house variant, making the purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when get_checks reports the checks have not been run... and you need a verdict') and when not to use it ('Do not use it to re-run a board that already has a result'). It also gives cost-aware guidance, telling the agent to avoid running it on every board, and references list_fab_profiles as the source for vendor ids.

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