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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload's contents and the difference between summary and full output, including that no_connect_pads are pads on no net — context the agent could not infer from the 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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the return payload first, then the detail-mode distinction. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what you get, and how to get more) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so field by field, including the summary/full split. Minor gaps remain (no indication of response size or shape of nested items), but the definition is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what 'full' actually adds ('every net's pads, and the pads left unconnected on purpose as no_connect_pads'), which gives meaning beyond the terse enum description 'How much to return (default summary)'.

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 specific verb and resource ('Returns a design's board') and enumerates the content returned (size, layers, parts, nets, routing counts), so an agent can distinguish this read from siblings like edit_board or export_board. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 is only implied: the tool reads board data, and the 'detail' parameter's default is stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over design_board, review_board, or export_board, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., required design state).

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