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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the source route is public, ownership is verified before calling, it fails closed, other organizations' salons are reported as not found, and provider roles are organization-wide. These details could affect an agent's expectations about results and error handling.

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 dense but every sentence carries unique value: the core purpose, the auth/ownership behavior, the org-wide scope, the exclusions, and the not-found behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids 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 single-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers limit, scope, authorization failure mode, excluded fields, and cross-organization behavior. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 documents salonId with type, pattern, and provenance ('returned by list_salons'). The description reinforces that the salon must be owned by the authenticated organization but does not add new parameter-specific syntax or format details 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 names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('providers'), and precise scope ('for the organization that owns a known salon') while capping results at 100. It clearly distinguishes the tool's output from sibling tools by noting provider roles are organization-wide and excluding fields like staff ids, contact details, and schedules.

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 appropriate use: when you need provider display names for a salon's parent organization, and the salonId must come from known salons. It explains the authorization prerequisite (salon must belong to the authenticated tenant) but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool.

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