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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the underlying engine (POST /api/compliance/check), that layers are derived, that standards default, and that omitting user_request downgrades results to 'caller-asserted.' No rate limits or caching behavior mentioned.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and standards, followed by the invocation shortcut. No filler, though the standards enumeration is long and the default rule is repeated from the schema.

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 supplies the return shape ('per-rule pass/fail with severities and remediation'), the default standard set, the derivation of layers, and the user_request labeling consequence. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents layers, standards, user_request, and stackup_config, including defaults and the caller-asserted labelling rule. The description largely restates the same default/derivation facts, adding little 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 and resource ('Audit the solved stackup against PCB standards') and enumerates the standard families checked. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_stackup_solver or run_pdn_analysis, which operate on different artifacts.

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?

Explicitly says 'call with no arguments once a stackup exists,' which gives a clear precondition and default path. It does not name a competing sibling or state when NOT to run it, but the context is unambiguous.

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