Get device, symbol, and footprint details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not carrying that burden. It adds the useful notion that a complete cross-domain payload (symbol + footprint + mapping) comes back in one call, but says nothing about behavior when the target is ambiguous, when a designator is not found, or why idempotentHint is false for a read.

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; the verb and lookup keys come first and the payload enumeration follows. It is dense — the comma-separated payload list is harder to scan than a short structured breakdown would be — but every clause carries information.

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, the description usefully enumerates what is returned, which is the main compensating strength. But for a 7-parameter tool with a 10-field nested target object and zero required parameters, it leaves the contextual anchor (how the active tab/page/project is resolved) and the multi-key disambiguation behavior unexplained.

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 71% and the schema already documents lcscCode, designator, deviceUuid, includeRaw and includePinPadMap, so the description's restatement of the three keys adds little beyond examples. The nested target object (tabId, pageId, projectId, documentType, fingerprint, etc.) and timeoutMs receive no explanation in either place.

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 (fetches) and precisely enumerates the returned resource set: device definition, schematic symbol pinout, PCB footprint pad geometry, and pin-to-pad mapping. It also names the three lookup keys, which lets an agent separate it from siblings like easyeda_get_component_pins or easyeda_verify_pin_pad_mapping without opening either schema.

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 three accepted key types (device UUID, LCSC code, placed designator) imply when the tool is applicable, and the designator example hints it is used against the active schematic/PCB. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling guidance and no statement about key precedence or exclusivity.

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