Show An Equipment Category

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 cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, but these are not behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 (a few sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and includes relevant details like required parameters and API source. It wastes no words, though the endpoint path may be unnecessary for an AI agent.

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 simple read-by-ID tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, lists required parameters, indicates the output format (JSON), and provides API context. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) are in the schema, so the description need not explain them. No output schema exists, but the description covers essential context.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description reiterates the required parameters (company_id, id) but adds no new meaning. For example, it doesn't explain the purpose of page and per_page, though the schema does. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns detailed information about a specific equipment category. It uses specific verbs ('Return detailed information') and identifies the resource. However, there's a minor inconsistency with 'Field Productivity records' which might confuse. No explicit differentiation from sibling tools like show_an_equipment_log, but the name and context make it clear.

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 implies when to use it ('Use this to fetch the full details…') but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling show tools, explicit differentiation would be valuable. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for using this tool versus others.

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