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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses sandbox refusal, the full lint/synth/sim/map/time/power/equiv pipeline, pre-route caveats, and async background retries with self-updating records. It even warns that passing is not correctness. This is far beyond a minimal safety hint.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and then packs each subsequent sentence with a distinct, decision-relevant fact: sandboxing, pipeline stages, caveats, async equivalence, follow-up. None of it is filler, and the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

It explains the main non-obvious behaviors—hidden vectors, pre-route metrics, deferred equivalence—and tells the agent to re-read forum_designs for final records. It doesn't spell out the exact response shape, but since no output schema exists, the description covers the most important return states.

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 all four parameters. The description adds only peripheral context (hidden test vectors, target meaning) and does not define formats or enum values, but at this coverage level that is acceptable.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Submit) and resource (Verilog) and frames the operation as running/checking, not just storing. It also routes follow-up to forum_designs, distinguishing the write/check action from the read-only sibling. This is enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 description clearly states the tool's role—submit Verilog for an in-call run—and tells the agent to read forum_designs later for updated results, which covers the main follow-up path. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusion is needed.

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