bw_get_composite_provider

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: it returns the inactive version. It also enumerates the returned structure in detail (view node type, source providers with mapping counts, field groups, join condition, temporal join). It omits authorization/lock-state or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is a single long, comma-heavy sentence, but the purpose is front-loaded and every clause maps to return content that is otherwise undocumented (no output schema). Slightly denser than ideal, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe the return value, and it does so thoroughly for a complex structure. The main gap is that it says nothing about failure modes or the practical consequence of reading only the inactive version.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains the technical name with an example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('a CompositeProvider (HCPR) structure') and enumerates exactly what is returned, which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_/update_composite_provider tools. An agent can tell what it gets without opening any other definition.

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 read-only intent and the note that it returns the inactive version imply usage, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no reference to when to prefer it over siblings such as bw_get_adso or bw_get_infosource. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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