Foundry process-node map (TSMC/Samsung/Intel)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and data-source bounds are covered by structured fields. The description adds genuine value beyond them by scoping the content to 'leading-edge logic' nodes and asserting per-entry citation from the foundry's own page, establishing provenance. It does not describe return shape or whether the node list is exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, content-first, with the scope qualifier and provenance claim front-loaded and no filler. It packs foundry list, covered attributes, and the chip-mapping secondary purpose into minimal space.

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?

For a read-only reference lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers subject matter, facets exposed, scope boundary, and source provenance. The remaining gap is the omitted-parameter behavior and any indication of result size or ordering.

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?

The single 'foundry' parameter has an enum that enumerates its legal values, but schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never references the parameter at all. It therefore leaves the default behavior (what is returned when foundry is omitted) unstated, though the enum keeps the baseline at a middling 3.

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 resource (leading-edge logic process nodes at TSMC/Samsung/Intel Foundry) and names the payload fields (transistor type, production status) plus a chip-to-node cross-reference. It is clearly distinguishable from chip-level siblings like list_chips or chip_specs, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. Nothing tells the agent when to consult this map versus chip_specs or compare_chips, and nothing explains that the foundry argument is an optional narrowing filter rather than a requirement.

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