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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses pagination, sorting, filtering, and the semantic difference between summary and full views (including counts for dropped sections). It also explains the 'context' parameter's non-ranking role and when it's read. This goes beyond basic functionality into useful behavioral detail.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a cross-reference. No filler or repetition of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers pagination, sorting, filtering, view options, and points to get_api/get_provider for single entities. Minor omissions like the meaning of 'composite' sorting or min_score are not critical. Overall, it gives an agent enough to call it correctly without being exhaustive.

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 only 55%, and the description compensates partially by grouping filter types and explaining sort defaults and view modes. However, several parameters (e.g., min_score, providers, match, area, region, artifact_types) lack any description-level semantics, leaving gaps that the schema doesn't fill either. The description adds value but doesn't fully cover the under-documented parameters.

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 tool is a paginated, sortable list of providers with specific filter dimensions (text, tag, artifact type, industry, region, rating band, access model). It differentiates itself from apis_io_search by explicitly saying to use that tool first for a cross-type overview, making the purpose distinct.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use apis_io_search first for a cross-type overview, implying this tool is for provider-specific queries. It doesn't enumerate all scenarios when not to use it, but the single clear pointer to an alternative is sufficient for most cases. Slightly lacking exclusions but adequate.

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