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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe/read-only. The description adds useful context by saying the view is 'assembled from its registered links,' implying aggregation from existing data. It does not cover edge cases such as missing links or whether the assembled view can be empty, but annotations lower the bar.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main concept and then enumerates the contents. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description names the expected output components and the assembly source, which gives a reasonable idea of the return shape even without an output schema. However, it omits practical invocation details such as what 'slug' refers to and what an agent should do if some registered links are missing. For a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 has 50% description coverage: the 'context' parameter is fully explained, while 'slug' is left with no description. The description does not add explicit parameter guidance, but 'slug' is intuitive given the tool name and provider focus. The baseline of 3 applies because coverage is not below 50% and the context parameter is already well-documented.

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 identifies the resource ('provider onboarding') and the kind of output: a getting-started view containing website, portal, signup, docs, authentication, base URLs, and first steps. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_provider or get_provider_evidence, but the phrase 'assembled from its registered links' conveys a unique aggregation behavior.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_provider, get_provider_apis, or get_provider_evidence. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and the phrase 'getting-started view.'

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