audit_find_mixed_designator_rotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the check runs per overlay layer independently and that a clean bottom does not excuse a dirty top. It implies read-only via 'find'/'checked' but never states explicitly that it mutates nothing or how expensive the scan is.

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-loads the condition in the first sentence, then justifies it, then documents returns. The middle paragraph about inspectors and fab houses is longer than strictly necessary, but it earns its place by grounding why the 0/180 vs 0/90 distinction 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?

Given no parameters, a trivial schema, and an output schema that exists, the description still restates the return shape and, more importantly, explains the per-layer semantics that the output keys (top_mixed_0_180, bottom_mixed_*) require to be interpreted. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there are none to add, and the schema needs none.

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 (find) and precise resource condition (silkscreens with designators at both 0 and 180, or both 90 and 270). The distinguishing rule (0+90 is fine, 0+180 is not) separates it cleanly from the sibling collision and rotation-adjacent audits.

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?

Explains exactly when the finding matters (assembly readability, QC rotation, fab surcharges) and explicitly excludes orthogonal mixes as acceptable. It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool to use instead, which keeps it short of a 5.

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