get_infra_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the '[READ]' tag merely repeats that. The description adds the underlying endpoint path (GET /api/infra-billing/providers), which is useful for traceability, but it says nothing about scope, pagination, or result size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus the endpoint reference; there is no filler and the purpose is immediately clear. Appropriately sized for a zero-argument read.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not indicate what an 'infra provider' record contains or whether the list is paginated. For a simple list endpoint this is adequate but not complete, and it could do more given the absence of a return schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool with an empty, well-formed 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all infra providers'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling 'get_infra_provider' (singular), leaving the plural/singular distinction for the agent to infer from naming alone.

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 on when to use this versus the sibling 'get_infra_provider' or the related 'get_infra_billing_nodes'/'get_infra_billing_records'. Usage is only implied by the name, so this is a plain no-guidance case.

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