get_handover_provider

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return content (provider type, configuration, connection settings), providing transparency beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 succinct sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds return details. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return content for a simple get operation. It does not address error cases or pagination, but these are unlikely needed given the single required parameter and no output schema. Minor gap: no mention of possible null or missing provider.

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%, with one parameter (providerId) fully described. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score 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 the verb ('Gets'), the resource ('handover provider'), and the level of detail ('detailed information'). It also lists the specific information returned (type, configuration, connection settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_handover_providers', which returns a list of providers.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (e.g., 'list_handover_providers') implies that this is for retrieving a single provider by ID. No explicit when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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