Get All Equipment Types (Company)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which inform the agent of the tool's safe, read-only, idempotent nature. The description adds context about pagination (page/per_page control, metadata in response) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 includes some redundant information (endpoint, required parameters already in schema) and is longer than necessary. It could be more concise without the contradictory sentence and technical endpoint details. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, but the confusing second sentence detracts.

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 explains pagination and mentions that the response includes pagination metadata, which is useful for a list operation. However, it does not describe what each 'equipment type' record contains, nor does it clarify the contradicting 'specific record' statement. The filter parameters are not addressed, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of the tool's capabilities.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that 'page and per_page control pagination' and that 'the response includes pagination metadata', which provides some extra meaning beyond schema properties. However, filter parameters (filters__is_active, filters__category_id, filters__id) are not mentioned in the description, and required parameters are restated from schema. The added value is marginal.

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 'Get all equipment types (Company)' which is clear, but then contradicts itself by saying 'fetch the full details of a specific Equipment records by its identifier', which implies a single-record lookup. The tool returns a paginated list, not a single record. This confusion undermines purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternative sibling tools like 'get_all_equipment_types_project' or 'search_all_equipment_company'. There is no mention of when to use or not use this tool, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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