fcc_broadband_providers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return content (ISP names, technology types, advertised speeds) and filtering behavior, but it does not enrich the behavioral context with pagination, default limits, or rate limits, which would warrant a higher score.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence stating the action, the second listing return fields, and the third providing usage instructions. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and filter options, making the tool usable. It does not explicitly describe default behavior when no filters are provided, but the schema and existing descriptions mitigate that gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all five parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that state and coordinates act as filters but does not introduce any parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool searches broadband providers by location or state and identifies the return fields (ISP names, technology types, speeds). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool fcc_broadband_coverage, which likely focuses on coverage areas rather than provider details.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: provide a state code, latitude/longitude, or both to filter results. This tells the agent what inputs to supply, but it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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