provider_deepdive

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the credit cost and the fact that it performs multiple lookups. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what happens on error.

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 two sentences, front-loading all key information (what is aggregated) and adding cost/value in the second. No wasted words.

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 complex aggregation tool, the description covers all included data types (status, models, pricing, benchmarks, news, traffic) and mentions cost. Even without output schema, the user knows what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the description of the 'provider' parameter is clear with examples. The tool description adds no extra semantic nuance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it aggregates live status, models with pricing/tier/benchmarks, news, and agent traffic for a provider. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on individual aspects.

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 explains when to use by highlighting the value of aggregation (saving 4 round-trips) and mentions the cost (1 credit). It implicitly suggests not using individual tools when a comprehensive overview is needed.

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