analyze_enig_plating

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real analytic context beyond that — the acceptance windows, the factors that drive the black-pad susceptibility score, and the gold >0.25 μm embrittlement flag — but says nothing about how results are reported or whether the output is advisory versus a hard pass/fail gate. With no output schema, a description at this level of detail could do more on the reporting side.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the tool's identity and then enumerates thresholds and scoring inputs in a logical order. Semicolon-heavy and slightly run-on, though every clause carries information; little could be cut without losing thresholds.

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 7-parameter read-only analytic tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain standards, the numeric windows, the risk factors scored, and the embrittlement flag — enough for correct invocation. The gap is the return shape: 'scores' and 'flags' are named but the agent cannot anticipate the result structure, and with no output schema that burden falls here.

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 coverage is 100% with defaults on six of seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by giving the acceptance windows for four of those parameters (gold 0.05~0.20 μm, nickel 3.0~6.0 μm, phosphorus 7~10 wt%, palladium 0.10~0.30 μm), which tells the agent what values are in-spec rather than just what units to supply.

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 and resource — 'ENIG/ENEPIG plating thickness and black-pad risk auditor' — plus the governing standards (IPC-4552A, IPC-4556). No sibling tool in the list covers surface-finish/black-pad analysis, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 purpose implies the usage context (qualifying ENIG/ENEPIG plating and screening black-pad risk), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings. The agent must infer that this applies to finish qualification rather than, say, fab capability auditing.

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