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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds essentially only the HTTP route (GET /equipment/list), which is redundant with readOnlyHint, and says nothing about result limits, default paging behavior, or how the wildcard name search behaves.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the capability and the filter dimensions are front-loaded and the endpoint is relegated to a trailing clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with 11 params, no output schema, and only 55% schema coverage, the definition leaves the agent without any description of the response shape, paging results, or defaults. Adequate to invoke, but not complete for this complexity level.

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 only 55% across 11 parameters, and the description names roughly half the filter concepts (name, customer, site, active, change time) but omits sort, sort_order, page, and page_size entirely. It therefore partially compensates for the coverage gap rather than fully filling it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (list/search) and resource (equipment/assets), and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so an agent immediately knows this is a filtered-collection read. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling pair get_equipment or create_equipment, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

The list of filterable fields ('by name, customer, site, active flag, change time') implies the intended use case of browsing/filtering equipment, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g. use get_equipment when you already have an ID), and no guidance on pagination for large result sets.

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