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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: results are sorted by track record, only ACTIVE providers are returned so no per-row status check is needed, and the tool gracefully degrades to an empty array on backend error. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know before relying on the result.

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 information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers return shape, sorting, use case, filters, and error behavior in a logical order. Every sentence contributes to successful invocation or interpretation of results.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies returned fields, ordering, filtering options, defaults, active-only semantics, and failure behavior. No critical operational detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by naming both optional parameters and their key semantics: archetype enum values and limit's 1-100 range plus default of 10. It could go deeper on the meaning of each archetype, but the enum values are self-explanatory and the added default value is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('ordered list of ACTIVE service providers'), and the domain context ('WMS, 3PL, fulfillment partners'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like recommend_lender by tying the tool to routing inventory ingestion or fulfillment, so an agent can immediately tell what it is for.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: route a merchant to an appropriate WMS/3PL based on operational capability, with a concrete example ('which STORD-like provider should handle this?'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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