get_gear_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state 'Read-only operation,' which is a key behavioral disclosure (no side effects). However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or the response format. The read-only note provides some value, but the description remains minimal in disclosing other behavioral aspects.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with separate lines for endpoint and read-only status. It is slightly redundant ('Get Equipment' and 'Returns an equipment...' both state the purpose), but it avoids unnecessary fluff and stays focused. The key information is front-loaded.

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 simple get-by-id tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it states the input (id), the action (returns equipment), and the side-effect profile (read-only). It does not elaborate on the response contents, but that is often acceptable for such tools, especially given the sibling context where get-by-id tools are common. It is complete enough for an agent to make the call.

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 100% and the only parameter 'id' is described as 'The identifier of the gear,' which is clear and sufficient. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the operation ('Returns an equipment using its identifier') with a specific resource (equipment) and an access method (by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_*_by_id tools by naming the resource 'gear' rather than activity or segment. The title 'Get Equipment' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 description makes it obvious that this tool is for fetching a single piece of equipment by its identifier, and there is no competing gear tool among siblings. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you have a gear id' or list exclusions, the unambiguous resource specificity makes the usage clear. It could be improved by explicitly stating that this is the tool for gear lookups, but the context is sufficient.

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