list_search_providers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond this by explaining that providers are registered per app, that a filters field indicates supported extra filters, and by enumerating common filter types such as since/until, person, and title-only. It also documents the JSON return format.

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 well structured: a one-line purpose, a short contextual note, a compact bullet list of filter types, and a clear Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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?

With no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema available, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly. It even adds the cross-tool guidance for using provider IDs with unified_search, which is valuable contextual completeness.

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 there is no input semantics to clarify beyond the empty schema. The description adds useful meaning around the returned fields and filter types, even though those are outputs rather than inputs. This matches the baseline expected for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List available Unified Search providers.' It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling unified_search by explaining that provider IDs from this listing are used with unified_search. The return shape is also stated, so an agent knows exactly what this operation produces.

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 provides clear context: this tool discovers what search providers are available, and the returned provider id is then used with unified_search. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the relationship to the unified_search sibling is stated directly, making the intended workflow evident.

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