Show Equipment

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already cover safety. Description adds the HTTP method (GET) and API path, which is useful but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or error handling. With annotations present, the description provides minor added value.

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?

Description is brief and direct: three sentences covering purpose, usage, and API context. No redundant 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?

For a simple read endpoint with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type (JSON object) and required inputs. Annotations provide behavioral safety. Complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description merely reiterates required parameters without adding new meaning. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns detailed equipment information for a specific Field Productivity record, using a GET endpoint with project_id and id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like show_equipment_company or list_managed_equipment, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 tells when to use it (fetch full details by identifier) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., listing all equipment). No comparative context is given.

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