calculate_castellated_pad_geometry

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: concrete acceptance thresholds (0.80mm hole, 0.05mm offset, 0.50mm pad extension, 1.27mm pitch, 20μm plating) and the physical failure mode each guards against. It does not state what the response looks like (per-check pass/fail).

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with standards and function, then enumerates the checks. No filler, though it is dense and all thresholds are crammed in without visual separation.

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?

Inputs and rules are well specified for a 7-parameter, default-heavy solver. However, with no output schema, the description never explains what the tool returns (per-criterion pass/fail, margins, or a composite verdict), which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 a 3 is the baseline. The description goes further by mapping parameters to pass/fail criteria (hole diameter, centerline offset delta, inward pad extension, pitch, plating thickness), giving each number engineering meaning rather than just units.

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 concrete verb set ('verifies') and a highly specific resource ('castellated hole / edge plating half-hole manufacturability solver'), naming the exact standards and five checks performed. Purpose is unmistakable, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many nearby calculate_* geometry tools.

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 use case is implied by 'to prevent copper barrel tearout and burrs during daughterboard depaneling', which tells the agent this is a pre-fab DFM check on castellated edges. It gives no explicit when-not conditions or pointers to sibling audits (e.g., press-fit, panel rails) that might overlap.

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