List All Equipment Categories

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing pagination behavior (page/per_page parameters, pagination metadata in response) and the full API endpoint path. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 (3 sentences) and well-structured: main action first, then usage guidance, then details. Every sentence provides unique value without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (paginated JSON array of Field Productivity records) and pagination metadata. It also provides the full endpoint URL, adding API context. No gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that page and per_page control pagination and that the response includes pagination metadata. This adds minor context beyond the schema parameter descriptions.

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 ('Return a list of all equipment Categories') and provides specific use cases (enumerate Field Productivity records, find IDs, filter by query parameters). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the context (company-level Field Productivity records).

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: when needing a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., project-level endpoints or search tools).

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