List providers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine semantic content: 'status is the catalog state; connection_status says whether the project can use the provider' disambiguates two similarly named fields that would otherwise be confused. It does not mention pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the discovery keywords, then the status/connection_status distinction. The 'Use it for integrations, data sources...' phrasing is slightly keyword-stuffy, but every sentence carries usable information.

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 usefully previews the return shape (connection status, priority, enabled state) and clarifies the catalog-vs-connection state distinction. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for limit/cursor, which an agent would need to page through large provider lists.

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 only 33%: project_id is documented, but limit and cursor have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate at all — it never explains result paging or the maximum of 200 per page, so an agent has no guidance on the two undocumented parameters.

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 ('List the data provider connections of a project') and then enumerates the concrete provider families returned (dataforseo, serpapi, gsc, ga4, plausible) plus the fields included (connection status, priority, enabled state). This specificity makes it easy to separate from adjacent siblings such as get_provider_rates, connect_provider, or set_provider_enabled.

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 sentence 'Use it for integrations, data sources, and provider credentials status' gives explicit, concrete usage triggers for an agent looking up provider configuration. There is no statement of when-not to use it or which sibling to prefer for related tasks, so it stops short of a 5.

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