search_equipment

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral aspects: it returns matching items with day rates, is free, and requires no API key. It does not explain ordering, pagination, or result limits, but for a simple read-only search, the essential behavior is covered.

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?

Three sentences, with the main action and resource front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant information (scope, return value, access), with no filler or 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?

For a search tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is searched and what is returned, and mentions access requirements. It does not describe the output format or any sorting options, but these are not critical for a basic search tool and are partly inferable from the schema and tool name.

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 schema already provides descriptions for query and category, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds context about the database size and categories, but it does not add meaningful detail about max_results beyond its obvious default. This is acceptable given moderate schema coverage, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('CrewOne database of Taipei film equipment rental rates'), and further specifies the scope (1,187 SKUs, categories, day rates in TWD). This makes it unmistakable and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which cover studios, photographers, and directors.

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 implicitly guides use by identifying the exact domain (equipment rental) and the return value (day rates), which differentiates it from siblings. It also states 'Free to use; no API key required,' providing access prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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