List Active Providers

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns currently activated providers and the tool names they contribute. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, and no contradictions are present. The behavioral insight into inspection of tool advertising adds value.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action ('List the providers') followed by a practical usage scenario. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 parameters, the presence of annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently explains the tool's function and usage. It is complete within its context.

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 no parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 tool lists active providers with their contributed tool names, distinguishing it from sibling 'opendata_providers_list' which likely lists all providers. The specific verb 'list' and resource 'active providers' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a usage hint: 'Useful for inspecting why a particular tool is (or isn't) advertised.' This implies when to use, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like opendata_providers_list or opendata_providers_describe. A more direct comparison would strengthen this dimension.

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