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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds behavioral context without contradicting: it explains icontains matching, the opaque pagination cursor, and exact ISO country matching. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying query behavior, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth.

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 a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact bullet-like list of parameter explanations. Every line adds value with no redundancy, making it easily scannable and appropriately sized for a 7-parameter search tool.

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 the 7 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: it explains each filter, pagination behavior, and the search scope. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool without further clarification.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains all 7 parameters, including the free-text query behavior, filter semantics, and pagination cursor. This provides essential meaning beyond the bare type definitions, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Search/list iGaming slot providers' with a parenthetical definition, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_slots and get_provider by focusing on the provider resource and the search/list action.

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?

Provides clear context for usage by detailing each filter parameter and its semantics, such as query matching name/aliases and has_news filtering published news. It lacks explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' guidance, but the context implies it is the primary search tool for providers.

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