Get PCB net and routing completion report

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. The description contributes the useful constraint that it operates on the 'active PCB', but it says nothing about why idempotentHint is false or whether results reflect a captured snapshot versus live board state, which matters for a reporting tool.

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 the resource stated before the metric enumeration, and no filler wording. The parenthetical metric list is long but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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 6-parameter read tool with a nested target object and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, which partly substitutes for the missing output schema. However it omits filtering behavior, result-size limits, and target/page scoping requirements, leaving real gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 67%, so roughly a third of parameters (the nested target object and timeoutMs) are undocumented anywhere. The description mentions no input parameters at all, leaving the meaningful filter levers (net name, status, category) and the limit/pagination behavior to be discovered only from the schema, adding no semantic value over the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Generates detailed physical metrics for nets on the active PCB') and enumerates the exact metrics produced (pad counts, track length, via count, zone coverage, completion percentage). This clearly distinguishes it from raw-entity siblings like easyeda_get_pcb_tracks or easyeda_get_pcb_vias, which return primitives rather than per-net aggregates, though it does not name the nearby easyeda_get_routing_status alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer from the metric list that this is for per-net routing completeness audits, but nothing tells it whether to prefer this over easyeda_get_routing_status, easyeda_get_pcb_airwires, or easyeda_run_drc.

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