Get PCB pads and pin connections

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 usefully adds that each pad carries net connection, layer, drill size, shape, and coordinates. It says nothing about result volume, default truncation at limit=200 (max 1000), timeout behavior, or whether the response is paginated, which matters for a board-wide dump.

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 a clarifying parenthetical - no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the space saved is spent on return fields rather than the filtering behavior an agent needs to invoke it well.

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 10-parameter, nested-target, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate picture of the returned pad fields. It leaves out filtering semantics, pagination/limit behavior, target resolution, and any differentiation from similar PCB/schematic query tools, which is enough gap to keep it at minimum-viable.

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 70%, and the description adds nothing about any parameter - it never mentions net, layer, component, or padNumber filtering, nor the includeComponentPads/includeStandalonePads toggles. Three parameters (limit, timeoutMs, includeRaw) are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap; baseline 3 is appropriate, not higher.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspects') with a concrete resource ('PCB pads') and clarifies scope by naming both component footprint pins and free/standalone pads. It does not name any sibling tool, so the agent must infer the boundary versus easyeda_list_pcb_components, easyeda_get_component_pins, or easyeda_get_pcb_vias on its own.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative pad/pin tools in the sibling set. The sentence describes what is returned rather than when an agent should reach for this tool instead of list_pcb_components or get_component_pins.

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