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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it lists the fields returned (IDs, org names, URLs, roles, consortiums), mentions approximately 60 providers, and notes public domain/no auth. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each with purpose: the main action, return content, and usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function, includes concrete examples, and ends with source/no-auth note. No fluff.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description covers the action, return fields, usage in another tool, approximate scale, and authentication requirements. It's complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly. The output schema likely provides return structure, so nothing else is needed.

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 single parameter page_size is fully described in the schema with range and default. The description adds only a minor context about provider count (approximately 60), which is helpful but not essential. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies; the description adds marginal value 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?

Clearly states it lists all data centers and archive providers in NASA CMR, with a specific verb (list) and resource (providers). It distinguishes itself from sibling nasa-cmr tools by explicitly referencing nasa-cmr.datasets.search for scoping.

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 explains how to use the returned provider IDs in nasa-cmr.datasets.search, which is a direct alternative and usage scenario. This is concrete guidance beyond just stating what it does.

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