calculate_teardrop_reinforcement

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds useful domain context (IPC-2221B 9.1.5 / IPC-A-600J Class 3 compliance, the failure modes being mitigated) but says nothing about output format, units returned, or any limits on input size.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource and then justifies it with the problem solved and the standards met. Slightly dense with compliance citations that could be trimmed, but nothing is redundant.

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 full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the remaining burden on the description is light. It conveys purpose, motivation and standards alignment; the only gap is that with no output schema it never hints at what the calculation returns (geometry, coordinates, recommended fillet radii).

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%, with the vias list item keys, the teardrop_style enum ('curved'/'linear') and the default trace width all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb (Calculate) with a precise resource (tangent teardrop fillets) and the target objects (PCB vias, circular pads, testpoints). An agent can immediately tell what geometry is produced, but it never distinguishes this from the closely-related sibling calculate_via_protection_plan, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

Usage context is implied by the stated goals ('prevent drill breakout, eliminate mechanical/thermal crack stress'), which tells the agent this is a reinforcement/DFM step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no mention of alternatives such as calculate_via_protection_plan, so the agent must guess which via-reinforcement tool applies.

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