search_equipment

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

The description provides a dedicated 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects (read-only, no modifications), authentication (none for basic, API key for pro), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling (structured errors), idempotency (fully idempotent), and data privacy (no storage). This is thorough and compensates for the absence of annotations.

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 verbose and contains redundant sections: 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap significantly. The 'When to use' section is off-topic and could be omitted. While the main purpose is front-loaded, extraneous text reduces conciseness and could be streamlined.

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?

The description covers behavioral and parameter details well, but the output description is minimal ('Matching equipment with specs and rates'). Given no output schema, more detail on the return structure would be beneficial. The misaligned usage guideline also detracts from completeness. Overall, adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The 'Args' section describes 6 of the 7 parameters with meaningful details (e.g., units, context like 'excavators only' for min_dig_depth_m). The missing parameter 'api_key' is not described in Args but is mentioned in the behavioral transparency section. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description adds substantial value, though one parameter is omitted from the structured list.

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 tool's main purpose: 'Search the construction equipment catalog' with explicit parameters. However, the later 'When to use' section introduces a generic description about structured analysis that does not align with the equipment search functionality, potentially causing confusion and reducing clarity.

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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are present but vague and not specific to this tool. The 'When to use' mentions 'structured analysis or classification' which is misaligned. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'check_availability' or 'get_rental_quote', leaving the agent without sufficient differentiation.

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