List Equipment Logs

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: read-only nature is stated explicitly, pagination behavior is described ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), failure modes are detailed (HTTP status codes 401/403/404), and the project_id default from config is mentioned. These are valuable disclosures that the annotations do not 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?

The description is detailed but every sentence contributes value: default behavior, documentation link, use case, pagination, read-only confirmation, failure modes, and endpoint reference. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, default date behavior, filtering options, pagination, error handling, and required parameters. The API path and category are also included, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds meaningful semantics about the date parameters (e.g., if none are provided, only current date logs are returned) and the project_id default. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the schema marks project_id as required while the description says it defaults when omitted, which slightly undermines clarity.

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 function: 'Returns all Equipment Logs for the current date' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds context about default date behavior and use case ('Use this to discover equipment logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), which distinguishes it from related daily-log 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 provides a clear when-to-use: discovering equipment logs or looking up an id before other tool calls. It also explains default date filtering and points to the Daily Logs documentation for filter details. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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