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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only says 'Add or update.' It does not mention overwrite semantics, required permissions, auto-generated provider_id, validation behavior, or reversibility, which are critical for a mutating tool.

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 only two sentences with no filler, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the second sentence is a loose list ending with 'etc.,' which is slightly less structured than it could be.

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?

This is a 21-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is a brief high-level overview. It does not explain return values, update behavior, which parameters are required in practice, or key constraints like provider_id auto-generation, making it incomplete for reliable 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 only 52%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It lists a few key ITS fields (LEI, service type, criticality, data location, exit plan) but adds no meaning for the many optional fields like notes, audit_rights, certifications, notification_clause, and last_risk_assessment. The 'etc.' is vague and unhelpful.

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 specific verb 'Add or update' with a clear resource ('ICT third-party provider in the DORA Register of Information'), which immediately distinguishes this write/upsert tool from sibling read tools like get_provider and list_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 phrase 'Add or update' gives clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It is sufficiently clear for a write operation, though no exclusions are provided.

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