Describe Provider

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Fetch' aligns with these. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (title, description, domains, etc.), providing context beyond the annotations. 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 concisely conveys purpose and return fields without any fluff. Every part is informative and earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (implied), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It lists the key fields returned and makes clear that this is a simple lookup by provider ID. No additional information is needed for this straightforward operation.

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 input schema already includes a clear description of the required parameter 'provider_id' with examples. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full registry entry for a single provider id', listing the included fields: title, description, domains, regions, keywords, homepage, license note, required environment variables. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opendata_providers_list (which lists multiple) and opendata_providers_find (which likely searches).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like opendata_providers_find or opendata_providers_list. It implies usage for fetching details of a single provider by ID, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or what exclusions apply.

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