audit_component_param_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that both parameter slots and the on-canvas Comment field count, that IsHidden=True values do not satisfy the rule, and that it runs on the flattened tree so multichannel/hierarchical designs are covered. It stops short of stating explicitly that the tool is read-only and makes no design changes, which for an audit tool is the one remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then organized as scannable per-class bullets with the acceptance criterion embedded in each. The per-class rationale (overvoltage, core saturation, unprocurable footprint) earns its place, but the explicit 'Returns' block duplicates the output schema that already exists.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needs only to define what is checked and how — which it does thoroughly. The only shortfall is that, lacking annotations, it never explicitly declares the tool non-mutating, and it restates return fields already covered by the schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: check that every placed component exposes the parameters its class requires, motivated by legible schematic and procurable BOM. The per-class rules make the scope unambiguous in practice, but the description never names the closely related siblings (audit_find_visible_supplier_pn, audit_find_placeholder_values, audit_find_mpn_inconsistencies) that an agent must disambiguate against.

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 implied through the stated goal (legible schematic, procurable BOM) and the note that it operates on the compiled/flattened tree, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, not when Y' statement and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a compiled project first. The agent must infer when this audit belongs in a review sequence.

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