review_board

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the result vocabulary (PASS/WARN/FAIL/UNVERIFIED) and that each finding carries evidence and a limit source, which goes beyond the annotation set.

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, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of checks, closing with the output contract. The single long middle clause is heavy but every listed check earns its place; no filler sentences.

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 multi-check review tool with a full schema and an output schema present, the description covers the check surface and result semantics adequately. It does not explain how failures are grouped or whether it requires a schematic, but the output schema absorbs the return-value burden.

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 100%, so the schema already documents board_path, fab enum behavior, and schematic_parity. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Review a board') followed by an explicit enumeration of the checks performed (DRC, zone fill, footprint-outline, manufacturability, power-net widths, stitching, decoupling). It reads as a superset of siblings like run_drc, but never names them, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

The framing 'the way a fab and a layout reviewer would' implies a comprehensive multi-check review, which contrasts implicitly with the narrower run_drc/route_check siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative, so guidance is only implied.

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