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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses that only provider names are returned and never secrets, and that some providers are operator-managed and not reconfigurable. For a game with no output schema, that return-shape disclosure is meaningful.

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 compact clauses, the core purpose and return shape front-loaded, followed by the selfServe reconfigurability note. No wasted text.

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?

A simple read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented parameter; the description contributes the return-content and operator-managed distinction. Adding pagination or empty-result behavior would round it out, but for this complexity it is nearly complete.

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 single 'game' parameter is fully documented in the schema (pk_ key or exact name, with header/primary-game fallback). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 the external login providers') scoped to a game, and clarifies the returned content ('names only, never secrets'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling enable_login_provider by name.

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?

Explains what the selfServe=true flag means and that those entries can be reconfigured via enable_login_provider, while the rest are operator-managed. That gives a clear follow-up path, though it doesn't spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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