jd_get_equipment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is the complete Deere record and that `embed` can pull in extra data, but says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or record size. Useful but modest context beyond 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, and both the embed behavior and the id caveat earn their space. Minor redundancy between 'full record' and 'Returns everything Deere has,' but nothing wasteful.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. The identifier routing note closes the main correctness risk. Remaining gaps (pagination, embed combination semantics) are minor.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description legitimately adds a disambiguation the schema does not: the warning that `principalId` is a different identifier reserved for jd_get_machine_* tools. It also frames `embed` as the source of supplemental data in the returned record.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the full record for one machine or implement') and explicitly contrasts itself with siblings: jd_list_equipment is the source of the id, and jd_get_machine_* tools use principalId instead. An agent can route between these families without opening any schema.

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?

It states the retrieval context (full record for a single piece of equipment) and, more importantly, which identifier to use and which tool family handles the other identifier. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or list of alternatives beyond the principalId routing note, so it stops 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.