Get schematic component pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful qualifier 'when available', warning that net data can be missing. It does not explain why a read is marked idempotentHint=false (results change as the design is edited) or how the allPages/includeRaw switches affect cost and output volume.

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 zero filler that leads with the action and follows with the returned fields. It is efficient, though it spends its one sentence on return values while omitting higher-value guidance.

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 no output schema and 75% of parameters undocumented, the description carries most of the burden and delivers only the return-field list. An agent still cannot tell how to scope pages, what to expect on timeout or on ambiguous queries, or when this tool should replace a sibling.

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 only 25% - just 'query' is documented - yet the description mentions no parameters at all. The three undocumented switches (allPages, timeoutMs, includeRaw) carry meaningful behavioral implications (page scope, latency budget, payload bloat) that the description leaves entirely unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns all known pins for a schematic component') and enumerates the payload fields (pin number, name, position, net), which clearly separates it from PCB-side siblings like easyeda_get_pcb_pads and from aggregate siblings like easyeda_get_schematic_nets. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 is only implied: an agent must infer that this is the drill-down step after easyeda_find_component or easyeda_list_schematic_components. There is no statement of when to prefer easyeda_trace_component, easyeda_find_unconnected_pins, or easyeda_verify_pin_pad_mapping instead, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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