NDIS Provider Feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation returning the 'full record', which implies read-only behavior. It doesn't mention side effects or error conditions, but for a simple get this is adequate.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key identifier. 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?

There is no output schema, but the description states the return is the 'full record', which sets expectations. It doesn't specify response format or errors, but for a single-get tool this is largely sufficient. Sibling tools are distinct enough.

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 input schema only names the parameter 'provider_id' without description. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that provider_id is the ABN, which is crucial for correct usage. This goes beyond the schema.

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 states the verb 'get', the resource 'provider', and the identifier 'ABN (provider_id)'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_providers (which implies multiple results) and list_service_categories (different resource).

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 when a specific provider_id is known, but does not explicitly contrast with search_providers for lookup scenarios or state when not to use it. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of valid values, which is a read-only operation, but doesn't describe the output format or whether the list is static or dynamic. Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the crucial cross-reference to search_providers(). 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?

The tool is simple (zero params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only minor gap is not describing the output format, but the output schema likely covers that. The cross-reference to search_providers() provides good context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by clearly stating what the tool returns and its purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('valid NDIS service category values'), and explicitly ties its purpose to a sibling tool ('usable in search_providers()'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_provider and search_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?

The description implies when to use it: before or while using search_providers(), to know valid category values. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by explaining that location filters match head office, not outlets, and that include_revoked defaults to excluding revoked providers. It stops short of stating read-only/no-side-effect behavior explicitly or addressing ordering/pagination, but the search semantics and defaults are clearly communicated.

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 organized with a clear summary, a brief rationale for head-office matching, and a labeled Args section. Every parameter gets a one-line explanation. The 'Phase 0' mention is mildly extraneous but not harmful; the structure remains efficient and scannable.

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?

Given six optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: filter semantics, defaults, and valid-value sourcing. It is slightly ambiguous about how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR) and does not mention result ordering, but the output schema plus the detailed parameter list make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It defines every parameter with operational meaning: case-insensitive substring for suburb, exact match for state, exact 4-digit postcode, exact category match with a pointer to list_service_categories(), the default behavior of include_revoked, and the limit default. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Search NDIS providers by head office location and/or service category.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings get_provider (singular lookup) and list_service_categories (enumerating categories) by framing it as a filter-based search tool.

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 concrete context for when to use the tool: it explains that head-office location is preferred over outlet addresses due to sparse data (~54% populated), and it directs callers to list_service_categories() for valid service_category values. It does not explicitly contrast with get_provider, but the search-vs-singleton distinction is implied strongly enough.

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