Get Identity Providers for Organisation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the behavioral trait that it returns 'all' identity providers (a complete list for the organisation), but does not detail any other behaviors like pagination, sorting, or permissions. With strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that get straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, lightweight behavioral profile), the description covers the core functionality. The annotation set is rich, so the description does not need to elaborate on return values. The sibling context might cause confusion, but the purpose is clear enough for a get-all tool. A minor gap is not explaining that the result is a list, but this is implied.

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 schema already describes 'organisationId' as 'Organisation ID'. The description merely repeats this in the Args section without adding new context, syntax, or format details. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no additional meaning is provided.

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 action ('Returns all identity providers') and the resource ('for the specified organisation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like machship_get_identity_provider (singular), machship_get_identities (different resource), and other organization/user-specific variants, making the tool's 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as machship_get_identity_providers_for_company or machship_get_identity_providers_for_logged_user. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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