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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is not paginated (next_cursor is always null), the Provider resolution precedence (curated mapping → exact signing-cert O= string → bare SeatID), and the fact that country-scoped results add extra fields while network-wide fields remain unchanged. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that helps an agent understand what the call will return and how it behaves.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and key output fields, followed by the resolution precedence, pagination behavior, and the optional country parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information appears early.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, how providers are resolved, pagination behavior, and the effect of the optional parameter. It does not enumerate every output field, but the description's mention of member seats, roster size, and country-scoped fields is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the default sort order beyond 'busiest first' or describe the envelope structure, but these are minor.

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 the `country` parameter thoroughly (pattern, case-insensitivity, 400 behavior, added fields), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the usage context of 'compare providers within one market instead of network-wide', which complements the schema without repeating it. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description adds a small but useful framing, a 4 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('access points'), then defines what an access point is: every Provider in its serving role with member seats and roster size, busiest first. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the Provider resolution precedence and the non-paginated behavior, which makes it clear this is a directory listing rather than a single-item or churn-focused tool.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list access points network-wide or, with `?country=CC`, to compare providers within one market. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the 'instead of network-wide' phrasing and the detailed scope semantics provide enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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