audit_find_single_pin_nets

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 the internal data source (DM_DocumentFlattened), so the agent knows off-page connectors are collapsed into one net across sheets. It doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only/no side effects, but the audit framing plus return description makes that clear enough.

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?

Definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by when-it-matters and causes, then scope note, then return. The middle paragraph of root causes is longer than strictly needed but earns most of its space by helping the agent interpret findings.

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?

Covers the predicate, the benign vs broken distinction, the hierarchy/flattening scope, and the return shape ({checked, violations, items[]} with net/designator/pin). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result without inspecting internals.

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 baseline is 4. The description spends its effort on semantics of the predicate and the return shape instead, which is appropriate given there is nothing to parameterize.

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 precise, testable predicate: nets with exactly one pin AND at least one net-label/port/power-object. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like audit_find_orphan_net_labels and audit_find_floating_ports, which target labels or ports rather than lonely pins.

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?

It clearly explains when a hit is benign (unused/no-connect pins) versus a real bug (named single-pin nets), and names the typical root causes to look for. It doesn't explicitly route to alternative tools such as proj_get_unconnected_pins for the no-connect case, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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