Get Identity Providers for Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read nature is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply. It does not discuss potential errors, rate limits, permissions, or the shape of the response. With annotations present, the description fails to add 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 very short: one sentence plus an args list. It is not verbose, but the args list is redundant given the schema. However, it is still appropriately sized and front-loaded. It could be more concise by removing the args list, but it 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?

For a simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return format (e.g., list of identity providers), any ordering, or pagination. The annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide enough context for an AI to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description merely restates the parameter name and type ('companyId (number): Company ID'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get all identity providers associated with a specific company.' It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'machship_get_identity_providers_for_logged_user' and 'machship_get_identity_providers_for_organisation', which have very similar names and purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with similar tools. Given the existence of sibling tools for different contexts (logged user, organisation), this is a significant omission.

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