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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a significant side effect: linking or creating a Person record by email, which is beyond the obvious creation of a provider. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as permissions, idempotency (despite an idempotencyKey param), error conditions, and whether the operation is reversible, leaving substantial gaps.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds valuable info about the Person record side effect. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff 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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 4 required) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It lacks parameter explanations, expected outcomes, error handling, and usage context. The description gives only a basic purpose and one side effect, falling far short of what is needed for such a parameter-rich operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 11 parameters. It only adds meaning for the email parameter by explaining its role in linking/creating a Person record. All other parameters (e.g., name, lastName, phone, apiKey, isInternal, serviceIds, comunasCobertura, defaultCommission, idempotencyKey) remain unexplained, providing minimal aid to the agent.

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 the tool's primary function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new provider in the organization.' It also adds a key behavioral detail about linking or creating a Person record by email, which distinguishes it from related provider tools like provider_update and provider_get.

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 — whenever a new provider needs to be created — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools are not referenced, and there is no exclusionary guidance. Usage context is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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