find_provider_capacity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns matching listings but does not mention side effects (likely none), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any other behavioral details. For a query tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and succinct parameter explanations. Every sentence provides value without redundancy. The structure is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details about the output format, pagination behavior, error handling, or any behavioral constraints. For a fully standalone description, this leaves gaps.

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 JSON schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing meaningful parameter descriptions. It includes examples for 'material' (e.g., PLA, PETG) and clarifies that 'location' is optional with a geographic example. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Find available provider capacity by material/location', specifying the action (find), resource (provider capacity), and filtering criteria (material/location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_provider_capacity' which likely returns all capacity without filtering.

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 when filtering by material/location is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_provider_capacity'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving guidance somewhat vague.

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