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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states what is computed (similarity based on specific criteria) but does not mention pagination, output format, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limiting. For a lookup tool this is minimal coverage but not contradictory. The description adds context about the matching dimensions beyond the annotations, but lacks explicit read-only disclosure.

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?

A single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core function and key criteria. No wasted words, and all content is relevant to the purpose. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 finder with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and matching dimensions. However, it omits any description of the return format, pagination behavior, or how the results are presented, which would be useful for an agent to anticipate the output. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more contextual information about the result structure would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only the 'context' parameter has a description). The description refers to 'a given one' which implicitly maps to 'slug' but does not explain slug format or that it's the provider identifier. 'limit' is not explained beyond schema defaults. The description does not compensate for the undocumented 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 states a specific verb ('find'), resource ('similar providers'), and the criteria for similarity ('shared tags, industry, region, and artifact coverage'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'find_similar_apis' by specifying providers specifically. The phrase 'alternatives' adds useful context that this returns replacement options.

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 when to use it (when you have a provider and want alternatives) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like 'find_providers' or 'get_provider'. No guidance on when not to use it or when to choose a different tool. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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