polaris_measurement_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return contents (query capabilities INSTANT_QUERY/RANGE_QUERY and outbound auth modes), and importantly scopes what exists today ('only NONE in v1; only PROMETHEUS is supported'). It does not describe pagination, errors, or auth requirements for calling the tool itself.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the action and its return contract. The 'Action:' labeling is slightly mechanical and the last clause about resource shapes is a bit tangential, but nothing is seriously wasteful.

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 single-action, no-argument-style catalog tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, and v1 limitations. It is nearly self-sufficient; only error/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter is a const ('list_types') and the description explains precisely what that action does and what it returns, which is the only semantic gap the schema leaves open.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Discover supported pull measurement providers') and names the concrete action ('list_types — returns the provider capability catalog'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like polaris_measurement_sources or polaris_measurement_producers, which occupy similar conceptual space.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool over an alternative behavior: 'Use this instead of hard-coding provider assumptions.' That is genuine usage guidance, though it does not name a sibling tool or state a when-not-to-use condition.

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