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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the helpful context that the details are 'public' and that pricing is included, but it does not go beyond that to mention error behavior or response format. With annotations in place, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target, and the key argument with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names what is returned ('public details and pricing') and how to select the record ('by provider id'). It does not document not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotations already covering safety and idempotency.

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% — the only parameter, 'id', is already described with an example ('adhd-now'). The description merely restates that lookup is 'by provider id', adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Get'), the resource ('one provider's public details and pricing'), and the lookup mechanism ('by provider id'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_services or search_providers, which are about broader discovery rather than fetching a single known provider.

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 clearly implies the right use case: when you have a specific provider id and need that provider's details or pricing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one provider... by provider id' phrasing provides sufficient contextual guidance for a simple get-by-id tool.

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