List Hobart machines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations don't: the exact payload fields returned, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of stating result limits or whether the list is paginated, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Two short sentences: the first defines the resource and its return fields, the second delivers the usage rule up front. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing four concrete fields. Combined with the entry-point guidance and existing annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The account scoping mentioned ('registered on this account') is useful framing even though no parameter exists for it.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Hobart dishwashers registered on this account), then enumerates the returned fields: serial number, machine type, protocol version, machine clock. This clearly distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like hobart_get_machine_data or hobart_get_temperatures.

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?

'Start here: every other tool needs a serial number' explicitly names when to use this tool and why, and implicitly routes the agent away from every sibling until a serial is obtained. That is an explicit entry-point rule rather than an inferred one.

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