Get Equipment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about customer scoping and single-record behavior, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, or how customer_name is resolved beyond what the schema already says. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, the requirement is stated immediately, and the optional mode is separated clearly. Every sentence 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?

Given the read-only annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers identity requirements, output fields, and optional single-record behavior. The only minor gaps are that the relationship between equipment_id and the required customer identifier is slightly ambiguous, and pagination is only discoverable from the input schema rather than the description.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the customer_id/customer_name requirement and the equipment_id option, and it adds the equipment fields returned. This adds minor clarity but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Get equipment records for a customer' and enumerates the relevant fields (type, make, model, serial, warranty, custom fields). It also clearly distinguishes the optional single-record mode via equipment_id. No sibling tool duplicates this purpose, so an agent can confidently identify what this tool does.

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 states the required input context: 'Requires customer_id or customer_name' and explains that equipment_id optionally fetches a single record. That gives clear guidance on when to call the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but there is no competing equipment sibling, so the guidance is sufficient.

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