payments_list_integration_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the action itself, such as pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects. Since annotations carry the main burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no contradiction, but minimal extra value.

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 a single, short phrase—'List White-label Integration Providers'—with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and doesn't include redundant information already present in annotations or schema.

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?

Despite having schema coverage and annotations, the description omits any mention of the response structure or what fields each provider includes. Since there's no output schema, an agent has no hint about the returned data shape, which is critical for using the results. Additionally, it doesn't explain how pagination works beyond the parameter descriptions. The description is too terse for an agent to confidently handle the output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (altId, limit, offset, altType) already explained. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters should be used or their relationships. Since the schema is comprehensive, the description doesn't need to compensate, giving a baseline 3.

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 specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('White-label Integration Providers'), which is unambiguous as a read operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'payments_list_coupons' or specify what 'white-label' adds to the context, so it's clear but not uniquely discriminating.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'payments_create_integration_provider' or 'payments_create_integration'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, the purpose of listing providers, or scenarios where it should be preferred. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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