infra_billing_get_infra_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read via 'GET'/'Get', but says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior for unknown UUIDs, rate limits, or the shape/format of the returned provider. Only the read-only nature is inferable.

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 core statement ('Get infra provider by uuid') is short and front-loaded, but the leading 'GET /api/infra-billing/providers/{uuid}' duplicates the same information and the 'Tags: Infra Billing Controller' line is framework noise that adds nothing for an agent. Roughly half the text is redundant scaffolding.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read, so the bar is low and the description covers the essential identity of the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent gets no signal about safety, failure modes, or return contents, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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?

There is one parameter, uuid, with 0% schema description coverage, but the schema itself declares format=uuid and a strict UUID regex, and the description's 'by uuid' confirms the parameter identifies which provider to fetch. The description adds little beyond the schema's own format constraints, so this lands at the baseline 3 for a well-typed single identifier.

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 ('Get') and resource ('infra provider') plus the identifier ('by uuid'), so the agent knows this is a single-record fetch. The sibling list contains infra_billing_get_infra_providers (plural, list) and infra_billing_update/delete/create provider tools, and the singular 'get...by uuid' clearly distinguishes this one. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the list sibling, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this versus infra_billing_get_infra_providers or whether a provider must already exist. There are no prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of alternatives. It simply restates the endpoint.

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