Look up engineering design-rule reference guidance

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: results cite sources and are estimates with caveats. This enhances transparency beyond annotations but does not contradict them.

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?

The description is concise: two sentences that front-load the key action and list covered topics without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, conditional requirements) and the presence of detailed schema descriptions and an output schema, the description provides a good overview. It could mention conditional parameter dependencies, but the schema already addresses this, so completeness is adequate.

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 the parameter semantics are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond listing topics; it does not elaborate on parameter relationships or conditional requirements.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: lookup generic engineering reference guidance, listing specific topics like IPC-2221 trace-width, clearance bands, protocol routing, decoupling recipes, bulk capacitance sizing, and DFM checklist. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate designs or perform other analyses.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit contexts, preconditions, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios relative to sibling tools.

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