find_cheapest_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: searches all 5 providers, compares pricing, and uses fuzzy matching. However, it does not mention potential pitfalls like what happens if no provider matches, whether the operation is read-only, or the format of the result. Given no annotation support, this is a significant but not fatal gap.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by scope and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or promotional language.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential action and scope. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., whether it returns a provider name, price, or object). This minor gap prevents a perfect score, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'model' parameter with examples, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description repeats the same examples and adds the context of fuzzy matching, but does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter format beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 a specific action: 'Find the cheapest provider for a given model.' It specifies the resource (provider), scope (across all 5 providers, compares pricing), and gives concrete model examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_models' or 'estimate_cost' by focusing on a single model's cheapest provider.

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 context is clear: use this when you have a specific model in mind and need the cheapest provider. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the description's scope ('given a model', 'across all 5 providers') implies appropriate usage compared to siblings like 'compare_models' (comparing models) or 'estimate_cost' (estimating usage costs).

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