get_gear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the return shape ("ARRAY of gear entries") and a reliability note ("verified live"), but says nothing about auth requirements for userProfilePk, rate limits, or empty-result behavior.

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?

It is a single sentence and front-loads the endpoint, but it spends words on internal implementation details (`src/services/gear.ts`) that don't help an agent select or invoke the tool. The sibling contrast is the only high-value clause.

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?

Return shape is described, which is good given there is no output schema, and the sibling distinction is covered. But with 0% parameter description coverage and no output schema, the lack of guidance on obtaining userProfileNumber is a real gap for a tool that cannot be called without it.

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 the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It only surfaces the parameter obliquely via `userProfilePk=...` in the URL, never explains what the profile number is or where to obtain it, and even uses a different name than the schema's `userProfileNumber`.

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 states the resource and outcome ("returns an ARRAY of gear entries") and explicitly distinguishes itself from getActivityGear, which is the key sibling. However, it never states the verb plainly (list/fetch gear for a user) and leans on the endpoint path to imply it, so it falls short of a crisp purpose statement.

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?

It names the alternative getActivityGear and the condition that selects it (activities service with activityId), which is genuinely useful routing. It does not address the other gear siblings (get_gear_stats, get_gear_defaults, get_gear_activities), so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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