Computers with a specific hardware

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output fields (model, service tag, RAM, warranty) but does not disclose pagination behavior or the effect of the 'raw' flag beyond what the schema already states. It provides some added context but not richly.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes only essential details: the resource, the key identifier, its source, and the expected output fields. No filler or redundant wording.

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 compensates by explicitly naming the fields returned (model, service tag, RAM, warranty, computer details). Combined with fully described parameters and read-only annotations, this gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly, though pagination defaults are only hinted in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description repeats the hwId source ('from inventory_hardware_list') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it does not push above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource (computers) filtered by a specific hardware component. It explicitly references the source (inventory_hardware_list) and lists returned fields, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like inventory_computers_by_software.

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 the tool—when you have a hardware_id from inventory_hardware_list—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. This is adequate but lacks the explicit comparison or exclusion that would make it a 4 or 5.

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