Get Equipment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the automatic resolution of customer_name to customer_id and the inclusion of custom fields (filter sizes, belt specs). There is no contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then prerequisites, then field overview. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description explains input constraints and the type of data returned (e.g., type, make, model). It does not describe the output structure explicitly, but the field listing gives a reasonable expectation. Pagination details are covered in parameter descriptions. Minor gap: no mention of response format.

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%, but the description adds critical context: customer_name performs partial matching and is internally resolved to customer_id, customer_id skips resolution, and equipment_id fetches a single record. It also clarifies the mutual exclusivity between customer_name and customer_id for input.

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 'Get equipment records for a customer', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('equipment records for a customer'). It lists the fields included (type, make, model, etc.) and mentions an optional single-record fetch by equipment_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer_jobs or search_customers.

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 states input requirements: 'Requires either customer_id or customer_name (resolved to ID automatically)' and notes that equipment_id is optional for fetching a single record. It does not, however, provide guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for broader customer info.

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