calculate_stencil_aperture_ratios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful domain context (the IPC-7525 criteria and what a failure means), but with no output schema it never says what the response contains or how deficiencies are reported.

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 with the standard and thresholds front-loaded and zero filler; every clause carries meaning.

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 read-only calculation tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the standard, thresholds, and the purpose of the result. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not describe the returned structure, keeping it below a 5.

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%, including the aperture object shape and all three numeric defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates the default thresholds but adds no format or unit guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Evaluate), the exact resource (SMT stencil aperture area ratio and aspect ratio compliance), and the governing standard (IPC-7525). It also names the outcome (identifying paste-release-deficient apertures), which distinguishes it from neighbors like calculate_solder_paste_volume.

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 makes the use case clear: checking aperture designs against the >=0.66 area-ratio and >=1.5 aspect-ratio rules to find paste-release problems. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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