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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral info: it is free and 'executes no provider,' clarifying it is a safe read operation with no side effects. It stops short of describing the response shape or pagination behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and follows with the limit/category qualifiers and the alternative reference. Efficient, though the clause stacking makes it slightly harder to parse than it could be.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, cost, and the alternative. Only the return format (e.g., what fields a provider entry has) is left implicit, a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that limit is 'in one catalogue page.' The description adds only marginal meaning ('catalogue order', 'in one category') beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every Alexandria data provider') plus scope variants (all providers or one category). It differentiates from firecrawl_find_tools by pointing at it for browsing/contracts, though it doesn't distinguish itself from firecrawl_recommended_providers.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('Used by the Firecrawl sidebar') and routes the agent to firecrawl_find_tools for browsing or contract reading. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' beyond that alternative pointer.

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