Find EasyEDA Pro net

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It adds the 'active project' scoping, but leaves the notable idempotentHint=false unexplained, says nothing about result size, paging, or how limit/timeout affect behavior.

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 with no filler, which is the right size for this tool. The trailing phrase "available connections or metadata" is hedged and could be made concrete without adding length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so only vaguely ("connections or metadata"). With two of three parameters undocumented anywhere, an agent cannot predict what it will get back or how to bound the query.

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 33%: only 'query' is documented (as a full or partial net name). Neither the description nor the schema explains what 'limit' bounds (matching nets? returned connections?) or what 'timeoutMs' means for an editor RPC call, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Finds a net by name and returns available connections or metadata" states a specific verb (finds) and resource (net) plus a partial statement of the return. It is distinguishable from aggregation siblings such as easyeda_get_schematic_nets or easyeda_get_pcb_net_report, though it never names easyeda_trace_net, the closest-looking alternative.

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 only usage context is the phrase "from the active project"; nothing says when to pick this over easyeda_trace_net, easyeda_highlight_net, or easyeda_get_schematic_nets. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no statement about whether the project must have a document open.

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