Look up engineering design-rule reference guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results cite a source and caveat, and the values are explicitly estimates rather than certified — important for an agent deciding how much to trust the output.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, dense with the covered domains, and ending on the critical trust caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and trust limits. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 (topic, layer, loadA, currentA, protocol, etc.) is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description enumerates topic domains that map onto the topic enum but adds no format, conditional-requirement, or unit nuance 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 ("Look up") plus the exact resource (generic engineering reference guidance) and enumerates the covered domains: IPC-2221 trace-width/current-capacity, clearance bands, protocol routing, decoupling, bulk capacitance, DFM checklist. This clearly separates it from sibling check tools like easyeda_drc_run and easyeda_erc_run, which evaluate an actual board rather than return static reference data.

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 conveys the reference/estimates nature and contrasts against certified values, which implicitly signals when to use it over real DRC/ERC checks. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit condition for choosing this over a live rule check, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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