search_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches a public registry and describes pagination behavior (offset/limit with defaults), but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the search results dictionary contains. The description provides basic operational context but misses key behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, though the opening statement could be more front-loaded with key constraints. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and the description covers all parameters well, the description is reasonably complete. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more about the search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching, ranking) and result format beyond just 'dictionary containing provider search results'.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'query' for provider name/keywords, 'tier' with valid values ('official', 'partner', 'community'), 'offset' for pagination, and 'limit' with default and maximum values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches for Terraform providers in the public registry, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Terraform providers'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., 'get_provider_details', 'list_provider_versions') by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_modules' which searches a different resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other search tools like 'search_modules' or when to use it instead of direct lookup tools like 'get_provider_details'. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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