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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds behavior they do not: the payload is a complete project including wiring and code, and the zero-argument default returns 'the smallest whole project'. It does not discuss error cases for unknown part/board names, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the intended usage and the no-argument default. The clause 'instead of writing pins from memory' is slightly colloquial but earns its place by conveying an anti-pattern. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does: a project with wiring and code. Combined with annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly; only edge-case behavior for invalid names is unaddressed.

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 100% and both parameters already document their expected vocabulary and source tools (search_parts, list_boards), so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema by explaining that the two parameters may be combined ('or both') and that omitting both yields the smallest valid project.

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 states concretely what is returned: a complete working starter (a real Mokxi template) as a project with its wiring and code, for a board, a part, or both. That is far more specific than the name 'get_example', though it never uses a clean verb such as 'returns' or 'fetches' and relies on the reader to infer that the template is the return value.

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 gives clear context for use: the example is 'ready for create_project' and should be modified to match the request 'instead of writing pins from memory', which effectively routes the agent away from authoring from scratch. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops short of the top band.

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