list_contact_channel_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns 'labels' rather than full provider objects, which is useful. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence that fully conveys the purpose. Every word is necessary. No wasted space.

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 has no parameters and has an output schema (though not shown), the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns (provider labels) and for which tools (person and organization channel tools). A slightly more detailed note about what constitutes a 'provider' could help, but it's adequate.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It correctly states it lists supported providers without inputs.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'supported contact channel provider labels', and specifies the context 'for person and organization channel tools'. However, it could be slightly more precise by using 'retrieve' or 'get' to distinguish from other list operations, but it is clear enough.

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 that this tool should be used when you need provider labels for channel tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list_person_channels, list_organization_channels). But the context makes it clear it's for labels, not actual channels.

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