Get Equipment Maintenance Record By Its ID (Company)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and provides the API endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already cover.

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?

Description is concise with five short, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, usage, return type, required parameters, and API details. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is fairly complete: it specifies return format, required params, and endpoint. However, it omits pagination details and does not explicitly reference the project-level sibling.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description lists three required parameters by name but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Optional parameters (page, per_page) are not mentioned.

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 fetches full details of a specific equipment maintenance record by its identifier and specifies the company-level context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like the project version, but refers to 'Equipment records' slightly ambiguously.

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 explains when to use (fetch by ID) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools such as the project-level counterpart or listing endpoints. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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