Get Equipment Maintenance Record By Its ID (Project)

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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it 'Returns a JSON object' and provides the endpoint structure, which adds context beyond the annotations. However, the annotations carry the main behavioral transparency burden, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is concise—three sentences plus an endpoint line. It is front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and return type. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (fetch by ID), the description is adequate. It specifies the return type (JSON object) and required parameters. The optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) are documented in the schema but not mentioned in the description—this is acceptable for a fetch tool. The sibling context is implicit via the title. A score of 4 reflects good completeness for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description lists required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not warrant a higher score.

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's purpose: 'Get equipment maintenance record by its ID (Project)' and 'fetch the full details of a specific Equipment records by its identifier.' This distinguishes it from the company-level sibling tool via the parenthetical '(Project)' and title. The verb 'Get' and resource are specific, and the description differentiates from similar sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to fetch the full details...' and lists required parameters, providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the alternative company-level tool. Nevertheless, the context of 'Project' in the title and sibling tool names implies the distinction.

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