Get PCB differential pairs

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile needs no restating. Because there is no output schema, the sentence carries real weight by naming the returned fields (impedance, width, gap, actual lengths, skew compliance). It does not say whether results come from live editor state, whether unrouted/newly created pairs appear, or how toleranceMm changes the 'compliance' verdict beyond the schema default.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a tight enumeration of returned fields with no filler or hedging. Every clause contributes information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, describing the payload is the key obligation and the description meets it. The remaining gap is the 'target' context object, which determines which document is read and goes unexplained in both schema and description. With zero required parameters and a stated default tolerance, an agent can otherwise call this correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 60%, so the schema does most of the work; the description adds the concept of skew-tolerance checking, which gives toleranceMm (and its 0.15 mm default) practical meaning. Against that, the nested 'target' object (project/page/document targeting), includeRaw, and timeoutMs get no explanation in the description, leaving roughly half the surface to be inferred from property names alone. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Lists differential pairs') and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: positive/negative net assignments, target impedance, trace width, gap, routed lengths, skew compliance. That is enough to distinguish it from neighbours like easyeda_get_pcb_length_groups or easyeda_get_pcb_net_report, but the description never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The reader has to infer whether this is the right tool versus get_pcb_length_groups, get_pcb_net_classes, or get_pcb_tracks when checking impedance or length-matching problems. The only conditional language ('Optional filter by specific differential pair name') is about a parameter, not about choosing this tool.

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