get_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Gets details', which is a basic read operation. It does not mention what happens if the provider does not exist, potential errors, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details about what 'details' include, but the output schema may compensate. For a simple tool, this is a baseline score.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain the 'provider_name' parameter beyond implying it identifies the provider. It adds minimal semantic meaning, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role from context.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves details of a specific provider package, using a specific verb ('Gets details') and resource ('provider package'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_providers' which lists all 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?

Description implies usage context (getting details of a single provider) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_providers' or other getter tools. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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