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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the full execution model: a page scout routing targeted model reads plus deterministic readers, seconds-scale completion, `engine` naming on every result, a deep-engine rescue path flagged as `monolith_rescue`, that rescue gets billed as delivered, and a recommended 10-minute client timeout. It also states the terminal failure mode (status FAILED with reason), which is exactly the operational context an agent needs to set timeouts and handle errors.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a long and-chained enumeration and the engine paragraph carries implementation detail ("page scout routes targeted model reads and the module's own deterministic readers, then the same normalization and completion checks as a dashboard job") that could be compressed. The timeout and billing facts earn their place; the pipeline internals are close to 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still highlights provenance fields (source_page, source_text_snippet, bounding-box evidence in PDF points and normalized 0..1000 space) that matter for auditability. Combined with explicit latency, rescue, billing, and failure behavior, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set expectations.

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% and both parameters (documentPath, partName) are documented in the schema itself, including the https-only constraint and local-stdio caveat. The description adds nothing about parameter handling, so the baseline 3 applies; the source_page/snippet/bbox text describes output fields, not inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ("Extract") and a well-scoped resource ("hardware design cautions") and enumerates the exact sub-categories covered: bootstrap/mode strapping, 5V-tolerant boundaries, NRST/SWD precautions, crystal guardrails, VDDA/VBAT isolation, reserved-pin handling. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like extract_pinout or extract_logic_levels, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the content list; there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus extract_pinout, extract_power_domains, or extract_logic_levels. The fallback narrative explains what happens when extraction fails, which is runtime guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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