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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description's extra context is valuable: it clarifies the scope is provider-specific rather than network-wide, states that meta.total reflects that provider's real count, and notes that include=["content"] inlines artifact bodies. It also hints the endpoint is what the provider page uses, implying a consistent data contract. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense but purposeful sentences. The scope is front-loaded, followed by the alternative and the meta.total behavior, then a concise list of filter options. No filler or repetition of schema content; each clause 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 9-parameter tool with no output schemaaine, the description plus schema covers the essential decisions: scope, alternative selection, filtering semantics, and content inclusion. It does not explicitly detail pagination fields (page/limit), but defaults exist in the schema letters and those names are self-evident. The nuanced tags warning and provider-page provenance make this comfortably above the minimum viable definition.

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%, but the description compensates for the sparsity by adding real semantics: it explains what tags mean on providers (identity from the provider's apis.yml), how match interacts with tags, that artifact_types can be required, and what include=["content"] does. Sibling guidance for tags also clarifies when not to use this param. The remaining unaddressed params (slug, page, limit) are conventional and mostly covered by types/defaults.

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 opens with a precise definition: 'Every API one provider publishes, as a page you can filter — the provider's own catalog rather than the whole network's.' This establishes both the resource (provider APIs) and scope (single provider's catalog), and explicitly contrasts it with find_apis. The title 'Get provider APIs' aligns, and the sibling-aware phrasing leaves no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer this over find_apis with a providers filter when you already know the company.' It also explains why (the provider page is built from this endpoint, so meta.total is the real count) and enumerates filter options (tags with match, artifact_types, include). This is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs to choose correctly among many siblings.

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