Equipment Details Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return details' and gives no information about not-found behavior, case sensitivity, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens with ambiguous name matches.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the key parameter semantic without wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the input semantics and the existence of an output schema covers the return format. The main missing piece is error/not-found behavior, but given the low complexity this is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema only says the 'equipment' parameter is a string. The description adds useful meaning by clarifying that the parameter can be either a name or an ID, but it does not provide examples or disambiguate what takes precedence if both could match.

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?

States a specific action ('Return details'), resource ('equipment item'), and lookup mechanism ('by name or ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from equipment_list_tool (which presumably lists items) and equipment_create_tool/equipment_update_tool (which mutate items).

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 this tool is used when you need details for a specific equipment item, especially when you have a name or ID. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or mention alternatives like equipment_list_tool for browsing all items.

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