get_provider

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the response includes rate-limit, expiry and reset-status data, which is real context beyond the structured fields. It does not mention the org-admin-key auth requirement, though the schema does.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed immediately by the use case; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations handle the safety profile; the description covers purpose, contents and intent. Only the conditional auth requirement (org admin keys) is left entirely to the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both slug and workspace_id are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is by slug and adds no format/syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one provider by slug") and enumerates the payload contents (limits, rate settings, expiration, reset status), which cleanly separates it from list_providers and create/update_provider.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as "check consumption or audit configuration before updating", which implicitly routes the agent to update_provider as the follow-on. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., to enumerate providers, use list_providers).

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