inference_list_providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does add real behavioral context: 'No signature required' tells the agent this is an unauthenticated read, and it lists the fields returned. It omits rate limits, result size/pagination, and any note about how the gateway/allowUnsafeGateway flags affect auth headers.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then auth, then the intended use — three tight sentences. The trailing earning_opportunities tip is mildly off-topic but short and clearly marked as a tip.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the auth posture and the selection rationale. Only pagination/scale behavior and gateway-related caveats are unaddressed, and the latter is covered by the schema.

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 both gateway and allowUnsafeGateway are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List providers registered on the marketplace') and enumerates the payload (models, price per request, accepted token, health/status, flagged state), which clearly separates it from inference_register_provider, inference_update_provider and inference_check_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?

Explicitly names a use case: find your provider id by matching payoutAddress after registering. It gives a 'when to use' but no exclusion or contrast with inference_check_provider, which also reports provider state; the closing tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to invocation.

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