calculate_ipc7351_land_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is deterministic, standards-derived geometry and names what is returned, which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes for unknown package names or how 'custom' inputs are treated.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and output set with no filler. It is slightly overloaded with parenthetical geometry abbreviations, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned geometry quantities, which an agent otherwise could not infer. It is largely sufficient for a 7-param, 1-required calculation tool, though it omits how optional lead dimension parameters combine and what happens for unrecognized packages.

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 every parameter including 'density' and 'package' is already documented in the schema. The description restates the density levels and 'or custom' but adds no new syntax or interaction detail, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 (calculate) + precise resource (IPC-7351B surface mount land pattern geometry) plus enumerated outputs (pad width X, pad length Y, pad center distance C, courtyard bounds). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as calculate_ipc2152_trace_current and calculate_ipc2221_clearance.

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 description explains what is computed and the density-level options but never states when to use this tool versus the many other calculate_* siblings, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions, no routing guidance.

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