bw_get_composite_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states 'Read' (implies no modification), lists return content in detail, and notes 'Returns the inactive version'. It does not explicitly assert idempotency or safety, but the read nature is clear.

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 front-loads the action and then lists what is returned. It is informative without unnecessary fluff, though the list is somewhat lengthy.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (general info, view node type, source providers, fields, join conditions, temporal details). The single parameter is clearly documented in schema, and the description specifies the version ('inactive'). No gaps remain.

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% (parameter described as technical name). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('CompositeProvider (HCPR) structure'), and lists detailed contents (view node type, source providers, fields, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_* tools that target different BW objects.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description (use when you need CompositeProvider details), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison to alternatives like other get_* tools.

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