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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description explains the returned content and important semantic caveats. It clarifies that supplier-stated facts are not independently verified, missing means unknown, and egg_score measures evidence readiness rather than product quality.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation warning and then explains returned content and data caveats. The three sentences are purposeful, with no redundant or filler text.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough context about what is returned and how to interpret supplier-stated and missing data. It also surfaces the deprecation status, which is critical for tool selection.

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 the slug parameter already documents the exact lowercase hyphenated format and source of valid values. The description reinforces that the slug must be exact but adds no meaningful parameter semantics 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 gives a specific verb and resource: get a published provider or media profile by exact slug. It also immediately identifies itself as a deprecated alias of get_provider, which distinguishes it from the canonical sibling 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 deprecation notice clearly points agents toward get_provider as the preferred alternative. The schema also tells callers to use a slug from search_providers or search, but the description does not explicitly say when not to use this deprecated alias or mention search_suppliers.

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