List All Project Equipment IDs

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 the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by noting that the response is a paginated JSON array with metadata, and it provides the API endpoint. This is additional value beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, the third explains the return type and pagination, and the fourth lists required parameters and API reference. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 tool has four parameters, all described in the schema, and no output schema. The description explains pagination and that it returns a JSON array with metadata, but it does not detail the fields within each record (e.g., what 'details' includes). While the main purpose of listing IDs is clear, the exact output structure is not fully specified, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description groups pagination parameters (page, per_page) and explains their purpose, and highlights that project_id is required. This adds context but is not essential since the schema is detailed.

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 'Return a list of all equipment IDs with details for a specified project' and explains specific use cases like enumerating Field Productivity records for a paginated overview or finding IDs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on project equipment IDs and paginated listing.

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 enumerate Field Productivity records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also mentions controlling pagination with page and per_page. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the context is sufficient for proper selection.

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