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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: results are server-side filtered and paginated, scoped to "current authorized equipment," and client-supplied records are not trusted. It omits pagination defaults and result shape, but the added behavioral context is substantive.

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 the usage trigger front-loaded and no filler. The closing line about untrusted client records is slightly cryptic and could be phrased more directly, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the entire parameter surface undocumented and never explains what a call returns or how pages are bounded. Annotations cover safety, but an agent cannot call this with confidence about filter semantics.

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 0% across 7 parameters with no enums, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at categories ("search, filters and pagination") without mapping them to `query`, `type`, `status`, `locationId`, `assetId`, `page`, or `pageSize`, or explaining how the id filters interact with the search 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?

The description states a specific verb set (browse, search, filter, inspect) and resource (equipment), and the title clarifies it opens an interactive explorer. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling `search_assets` or `view_asset`, which sound like near-equivalents.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to browse, search, filter or inspect equipment interactively" gives a real trigger condition. But the trigger verbatim overlaps with sibling `search_assets` (search) and `view_asset` (inspect), and the description names no alternative or exclusion, so an agent still has to guess between them.

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