provider_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: it never opens Chrome/CDP or publisher pages. This tells the agent the tool has no live browser side-effects. It also implies 'static' and 'local' behavior, which complements the read-only annotation without contradicting it.

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 primary action in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an important caveat and alternative. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a status inspection tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states the core purpose, the non-browser behavior, and directs to the appropriate live tool. However, the lack of any parameter explanation leaves a gap, since the schema's enum values are not self-explanatory for all users. Still, the tool is simple enough that this is a minor shortcoming.

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 bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. However, it only says 'filtered' without explaining what group, detail, or provider mean. The enums in the schema are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no guidance on how to choose values like 'official' vs 'browser' or 'compact' vs 'full'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the resource ('filtered static provider configuration and local dependency readiness'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'This never opens Chrome/CDP or publisher pages' and pointing to browser_preflight for live health, making its unique scope very clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use this tool for static configuration and local readiness checks, but use browser_preflight for live health. It names the alternative tool directly, which is exactly what this dimension asks for.

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