list_identity_providers

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real value: the return envelope keys and the behavioral guarantee that the IdP returns the complete set and the listing is 'never clipped.' That is genuine disclosure beyond annotations. One caveat: the never-clipped claim sits awkwardly against the max_results parameter in the schema, which is never reconciled.

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?

Three tight blocks — read tag, args, returns — with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape and completeness, which is exactly what is needed. The remaining gap is the undocumented max_results parameter, which matters given the truncation claim.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It handles target well by naming its source (config) and the omit-for-default behavior, which the schema does not say. It says nothing about max_results, however, and its 'never clipped' statement arguably conflicts with that parameter's existence.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '[READ] Federated identity providers / sources configured on the IdP.' An agent immediately knows this enumerates IdP-side federated identity providers. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the many sibling list_* tools (list_clients, list_users, list_groups), so it falls short of the 5-level sibling routing cue.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource type, and the args note ('target: IdP target name from config; omit for the default') gives a selection rule for the target parameter. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternatives such as identity_overview or realm_info, and no prerequisites stated.

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