List providers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results come in priority order, BookingKoala returns no total, and next_cursor is only set while a full page comes back. It also discloses the returned relationship shape (a team lists member provider ids; a provider lists teams it belongs to and leads).

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?

Three tight sentences with the resource and ordering stated up front, followed by return shape and then pagination caveat. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a clause, a small readability cost, but no sentence is wasted.

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 and five optional parameters, the description carries the return-shape burden well: it explains mixed provider/team results, team membership fields, ordering, and the missing-total pagination quirk. Only the absence of any guidance on the search/status filters in prose keeps it below complete.

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 100% and the enum/limit/cursor/search/status semantics are fully described in the schema itself. The description only echoes the 'type team returns teams only' behavior already in the enum description, adding marginal value, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (providers/teams) with scope: 'the store's service providers ... single providers and teams together'. It also disambiguates the 'team' mode and routes the agent to get_provider, so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('as the Providers page lists them') and names the downstream consumer ('Use provider_id in get_provider and when assigning a booking'). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus another listing tool, but no sibling lists providers, so the gap is minor.

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