list_equations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states 'Read-only,' explains that equations exist outside the plain-text layer, and clarifies that the index is an opaque handle for later deletion. This is strong disclosure for a listing tool, though it does not mention ordering, pagination, or edge-case behavior such as documents with no equations.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and scope, adds a crucial cross-tool note, and ends with the safety hint. Every sentence carries information needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 single-parameter list tool with an output schema available, the description is complete: it documents scope, expected return fields, relationship to other tools, and read-only behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or to interpret the result is missing.

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 only parameter, file_path, has zero schema description coverage. The description refers to 'the document' but does not explicitly define file_path's format, requirements, or how it is used. While file_path is self-explanatory, the description does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 and resource: 'List every equation in the document' and enumerates the exact coverage (body, tables, footnotes, endnotes) and output fields (index, display vs inline, location, plain-text approximation). It also distinguishes itself from get_text and find_text by explaining that equations are not in the plain-text layer, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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 says 'THIS is how equation content is read' and names get_text and find_text as alternatives that cannot see equations. It also reveals that the returned index is the handle delete_equation takes, giving the agent clear guidance on when to call this tool and how its output feeds into another operation.

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