convergent-provider-directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'full detail record', so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the sourcing instruction in the second sentence; no wasted words.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides the necessary workflow context and is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% and already states the id is the provider id returned by search_provider with an example. The description largely repeats this, adding no new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('get'), resource ('full detail record for one provider'), and identifier ('id'), clearly distinguishing it from search_provider which presumably lists/finds providers.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use the id returned by search_provider, defining the intended workflow. It does not name exclusions, but the single sibling makes the relationship clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a list of matching providers with an id for follow-up, but does not disclose pagination, result limits, or whether results are sorted. No contradiction 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 sentences, no filler. The main action and output are stated first, and the sibling pointer is a valuable second sentence. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 search tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: search by filters and use the returned id for the detail tool. It does not mention that filters can be combined or that acceptingNewPatients is also a searchable criterion, but those are documented in the schema. The description is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description repeats the three main search fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema; acceptingNewPatients is only in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb 'search' and names the provider directory as the resource, listing the filter criteria (name, specialty, city) and the output (list with id). It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_provider_details by positioning itself as the lookup step. This is a specific, non-tautological statement.

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 states the tool searches a directory and instructs that the returned 'id' can be passed to get_provider_details for the full record. This implies the correct workflow: use search_provider to find providers and get_provider_details for details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or conditions for choosing the alternative.

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