list_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Returns', which signals a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose whether authentication is needed, ordering, or other behavioral aspects. The simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is intentionally simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description fully covers the tool's purpose, and additional behavioral details are unnecessary given the output schema handles return value specifics.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not relevant. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description does not need to explain any input details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'list of available food delivery apps'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_venues and get_venue_menu, which focus on searching or menus.

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 implies usage by stating the tool returns available food delivery apps, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Since the tool has zero parameters, the context is clear enough to infer use before searching for venues or items, but explicit guidance is absent.

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