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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: results are permission-scoped to what the signed-in user can reach, and the payload is deliberately summary-level rather than full records. It does not mention pagination behavior or total counts, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the sibling hand-off. Every clause carries information the agent needs to choose or call the tool.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, result shape, and the escalation path to the detail tool. Pagination defaults and total-count behavior are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so the five parameters are already documented, and this is the baseline case. The description only reinforces the project-name narrowing and the fact that availability is returned; it says nothing about search, page, or per_page, and does not clarify project vs project_id beyond what the schema says.

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 ("List the equipment"), plus the scope ("the signed-in user can reach") and what each result carries (category, availability). It also names the sibling get-equipment-item as the detail-view counterpart, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a 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?

"Returns short summaries; call get-equipment-item for one in full" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, and "can be narrowed to one project by name" gives a usage cue for filtering. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool or how the two project filters differ, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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