design_load_fab_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the concrete validation rules (MILS dimensions, oz/ft^2 copper weight, copper outer layers, no adjacent copper plies) and both success and failure response shapes. It only implies read-only/pure behavior rather than stating it, and doesn't say whether failed validation raises or just returns ok:false beyond the shape shown.

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?

Purpose and the never-from-memory rule are front-loaded, and the Args/Returns blocks map cleanly to the schema and response. It is somewhat verbose (roadmap path citation, docstring-style formatting) but every section carries usable information.

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 single nested-object parameter with no annotations, the description supplies the domain vocabulary, units, validation constraints, return shape, and downstream consumer — enough to call it correctly. Only the exact min_* key naming and explicit purity statement are left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the expected keys (name, source citation, copper_layer_counts, seven min_*_mils floors, optional stackups) and their unit conventions. It stops short of giving exact key names for the seven min_* fields, leaving macro-pattern inference.

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 pair (validate + echo normalized form) against a named resource (FabProfile) and explicitly positions itself as the 'schema gate' feeding design_synthesize_rules. An agent can distinguish it from any sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear sequencing context (Stage 8, before synthesizing design rules) and a hard constraint on data provenance (transcribe from the fab capability page, never recall from memory). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or a sibling alternative to skip to, but the operational context is strong.

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