calculate_via_protection_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content by revealing the deterministic selection logic, but says nothing about error cases, how the plan is computed, or the shape of the result.

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 states the purpose before enumerating the mapping rules via a colon-separated list. Dense but every clause carries domain signal; only the very long enumeration keeps it from being tight.

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 one-parameter, fully-documented input with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the selection logic and implicitly the output content (the chosen protection types). It does not describe the returned plan's format or structure, leaving a real gap for an agent.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the {id, in_pad, land_type, in_bga_pitch, vippo_filled} via list. The description does not add field-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Select) and a well-scoped resource (IPC-4761 via protection types I–VII) mapped to via assembly context. An agent can distinguish it from calculation siblings like calculate_via_stitching_array. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to avoid, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides rich domain rules (Type VII mandatory for BGA via-in-pad, Type V for thermal pads, etc.), which imply when each selection applies, but never states when to invoke this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions must hold. Usage is implied rather than declared.

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