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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that providers are 'backend-verified' and 'compatible with an owned bag', which clarifies filtering criteria and the prerequisite of owning a bag. However, it does not detail response format or sort behavior beyond this.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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 tool is a simple list operation with good annotation coverage. The description provides the essential purpose and context (owned bag, compatibility), though it omits response field details or sort explanation. Overall, it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 two parameters with zero description coverage. The description explains that bagId refers to the owned bag, but does not elaborate on the 'sort' enum values or their semantics. Since the schema is minimal, the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backend-verified providers'), with qualifying scope ('compatible with an owned TON Storage bag'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like storage.provider_quote or storage.list_bags.

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 usage context (you need an owned bag) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools or mention exclusions, so the agent must infer the use case.

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