rent_equipment

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the tool's multi-step behavior including creating a booking and returning a safety checklist. It does not mention authorization needs or reversibility, but it covers the main side effects (booking creation).

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 well-structured: a bold header, a concise purpose paragraph, clearly separated arguments with bullet points, and a structured return example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a detailed return JSON object covering all steps (search, quote, availability, booking, safety). It also fully explains arguments and workflow, making the tool self-contained.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter with defaults and constraints (e.g., equipment_type options, postcode meaning). However, it omits the 'api_key' parameter present in the schema.

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 it is an 'end-to-end plant hire' tool that rents equipment in one call, performing multiple steps: search, quote, availability, booking, safety checklist. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle individual sub-steps.

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 implies usage when a complete rental workflow is desired ('Rents a piece of plant equipment in one call'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for partial workflows, but the sibling list makes it clear.

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