audit_find_unconnected_ic_pins

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 it reads the cached project.get_bom snapshot with no extra Altium round-trip, that it only inspects designators starting with 'U', that NC-by-convention pins are intentionally skipped, and that results match the dashboard chip. It stops short of stating permissions or whether the BOM cache can be stale.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the multi-line 'Returns:' block restates a return shape that is already published as an output schema, and the dashboard/JS-implementation aside is background flavor rather than invocation guidance. Roughly a third of the text does not earn its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only audit whose return shape is covered by an output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: the U-prefix heuristic, the NC exclusion convention, the data source, and the cost profile. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the sibling-overlap question unresolved.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exists.

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 description gives a specific verb+resource ('Find IC pins with an empty / unset net') plus a precise exclusion rule (NC/DNC/RSVD/RESERVED), so an agent knows exactly what class of defect is reported. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the existing sibling proj_get_unconnected_pins, which sounds like it covers overlapping ground.

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 context is implied rather than stated: it is a cheap lint check over the cached BOM and the agent can 'drill in from one call.' There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer this over proj_get_unconnected_pins or design_lint_report.

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