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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, pagination, or return shape. Only the '_list' naming convention implicitly suggests a safe read.

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 tight sentence with no wasted words, though the fragmentary phrasing ('or warranties ending soon across a shop') is cryptic enough that brevity comes at some cost to clarity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage leave major gaps: mode exclusivity, archive filtering behavior, result format, and pagination are all undocumented. The description is far too thin for a four-parameter query tool.

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% for four parameters. The description loosely maps 'property' to property_id and 'warranties ending soon' to warranty_ends_within_days, but leaves shop_id, include_archived, and the interaction between the two modes entirely unexplained.

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?

Names the resource (equipment) and two query scopes (per-property equipment, shop-wide warranty expirations), so an agent can tell it is the read/list counterpart to equipment_add and equipment_update. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, and the dual-mode framing is slightly ambiguous.

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 two modes are hinted at via 'at a property' and 'across a shop,' but the description never states when to use which, whether they are mutually exclusive, or how they relate to equipment_add/equipment_update. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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