GetPaymentProviders

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 required 'region_id' parameter, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), what format the list returns, whether there's pagination (though offset/limit parameters suggest it), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the most critical usage requirement. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it does cover.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only covers one parameter's purpose and doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return format, or usage context beyond the basic region requirement. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering/sorting parameters, this leaves too much undocumented.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description only explains one parameter ('region_id' as required for region-specific retrieval). It doesn't mention the purpose of 'fields', 'offset', 'limit', or 'order' parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 action ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('payment providers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like GetRegions or GetCurrencies by focusing specifically on payment providers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-retrieval tools like GetProducts or GetOrders beyond the 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 some usage guidance by stating that 'region_id' is required to retrieve providers enabled in that region, which implies this tool should be used when needing region-specific payment providers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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