Get Unmanaged Equipment (Project)

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

Annotations already clarify readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the response is paginated and includes pagination metadata, and mentions using page/per_page. However, it contradicts itself by saying 'specific record' while returning an array, reducing transparency.

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 moderately concise but repeats information from the title ('Get unmanaged equipment (Project)'). It includes unnecessary details like the Procore API version and endpoint. While structured, it could be tightened without loss of meaning.

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 8 parameters, pagination, and no output schema, the description should explain filter usage and response format more fully. It only covers pagination and required params, omitting search and filter functionality. The inconsistency about 'specific record' vs paginated array further undermines completeness.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The description reiterates required parameters (project_id, company_id, per_page) and pagination controls but does not explain filter parameters (search, filters__id, filters__updated_at) or the view enum. Thus it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 states 'fetch the full details of a specific Equipment records by its identifier' but the input schema lacks an identifier parameter and the endpoint returns a paginated array, indicating it is a list operation. This contradiction makes the purpose vague and misleading.

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 versus alternatives. The description implies it is for fetching a specific record, but it is actually a list endpoint with filtering. No mention of when not to use it or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_equipment_by_project'.

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