Contract Testing: Get Provider States

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the parameters themselves, such as whether an unknown provider causes an error, what 'states' means, or what the returned list contains.

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 core descriptive sentence is concise, but the parameter section duplicates what is already in the input schema, adding no new information. The structure is clear enough, yet the redundancy keeps it from being tightly economical.

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 simple read-only fetch with one required parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return shape, the meaning of 'states' in this domain, or edge cases, so an agent may not fully understand what to expect from the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially repeats the schema's parameter names, types, defaults, and descriptions without adding extra meaning, format constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('the states of a specific provider'), so an agent can tell what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling contract-testing get_* tools, but the resource name is reasonably distinct.

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 instead of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply restates the action and parameters, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context from the name and sibling list.

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