Api settings sso provider retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what SSO provider configuration is returned, whether it exposes secrets, or whether auth is required.

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 description is a single bare identifier rather than prose, so it is not verbose but is severely under-specified. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficient writing.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what the SSO provider payload contains, and it says nothing. For a settings/security-adjacent retrieval endpoint surrounded by near-identical siblings, this is not enough to call it correctly with confidence.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies when there are no parameters to document.

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 is just the tool's identifier restated ("api_settings_sso_provider_retrieve"), not a sentence describing what is done. An agent can infer 'retrieve SSO provider settings' only from the name itself, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like sso_info_retrieve, sso_object_retrieve, or sso_retrieve.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely named alternatives (sso_retrieve, sso_info_retrieve, sso_object_retrieve) that an agent would have to disambiguate against. The description provides no routing information whatsoever.

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