Get provider

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it explains the data scope mirrors the admin provider page, clarifies team-vs-member shape ('the team's members and lead (for a team) or the teams it belongs to'), and notes payment logs are raw BookingKoala records. It does not mention permission requirements or behavior for an invalid id.

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 summary clause is front-loaded before the detailed enumeration, so an agent skimming gets the gist immediately. The second sentence is long but every clause names a distinct returned data category. Minor redundancy between 'contact' in sentence one and 'contact details' in sentence two.

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 output schema, the description bears the burden of describing return content and does so thoroughly across contact, category, priority, permissions, team structure, reviews and payment logs. Gaps remain around review pagination or limits, error behavior for unknown ids, and whether payment logs are a truncated subset. Adequate but not airtight.

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 description coverage is 100%, documenting provider_id (including that it can be a team) and payment_logs_limit with its 1-50 range and default. The description adds only marginal reinforcement by reiterating that team members and payment logs are included. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('One provider or team') and enumerates the facets returned: contact, category, team members, reviews, payment logs. It implicitly contrasts with list_providers by fetching a single entity, though it never names that sibling. An agent knows what the tool returns but must infer the single-vs-list distinction from the schema rather than the prose.

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?

Usage is implied by 'provider_id from list_providers' in the schema and by the singular 'One provider', so the retrieve-by-id-after-listing pattern is inferable. However, the description states no explicit when-to-use or when-not conditions and names no alternative such as list_providers for bulk retrieval. Minimum viable guidance.

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