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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope. The description adds the useful constraint that it operates on the SAVED board (unsaved edits are not checked) and states what it returns (errors and warnings with locations), which annotations do not cover.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the tool's action, scope, and return content with no filler. Every clause (rule categories, saved-board constraint, error/warning return) earns its place.

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, the description correctly summarizes return values (errors and warnings with locations). It does not mention runtime duration, severity levels, or how to interpret failures, but it is otherwise sufficient for a single-parameter read-only check tool.

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?

There is only one parameter (design_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the load. The description's 'on the saved board' phrasing reinforces that design_id refers to a persisted design, but adds no further naming or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (runs design-rule check) plus the resource (PCBEditor board) and enumerates the rule categories checked (clearances, shorts, unrouted nets, drill/edge rules, hardware faults). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like review_board or design_board, since it names the concrete check performed.

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?

The phrase 'on the saved board' implies usage context (the design must be saved first), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given. No alternative tool such as review_board is named or excluded, leaving the agent to infer which checking tool to pick.

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