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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects. It implies a read-only action ('Show') but does not disclose whether this tool performs evaluations, makes network calls, or if the results are cached. No information about return format or potential errors is given.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. There is no wasted wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list, scores, status) and possibly the source of the evaluation data. It only says 'Show', leaving ambiguity about the nature and completeness of the result. For a tool with zero parameters, it is minimally acceptable but lacks depth.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already confirms no inputs are needed. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not undercut that.

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 tool's action ('Show') and resource ('evaluated HAPI and Hugging Face provider candidates'). It distinguishes from generic provider tools by specifying the evaluated nature and the two provider types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from provider_list or provider_rank.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like provider_list, provider_probe, or provider_rank. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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