provider_status

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

Description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it never opens Chrome/CDP or publisher pages. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description enriches transparency for a safe, read-only operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by exclusion. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple read-only tool with output schema provided, the description covers the key behavioral constraint. It omits explanation of output structure, but output schema compensates. Slightly incomplete regarding parameter descriptions, but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain parameter semantics (group, detail, provider). While parameter names and enums are somewhat self-explanatory, an agent would benefit from clarity on meaning and defaults, especially for 'detail' and 'group' values.

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?

Description clearly states the tool inspects static provider configuration and local dependency readiness, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling browser_preflight by explicitly excluding live health checks.

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?

States when to use this tool (static config/local) and when to use browser_preflight (live health), providing explicit guidance and alternative tool reference.

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