get_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it 'gets details' — a read operation — but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if provider_name doesn't exist), permissions needed, response format (though output schema exists), or any other behavioral traits. The description is too thin to give an agent confidence beyond the basic action.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It contains no filler or redundancy. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context; it is appropriately sized for a simple getter but could include a bit more guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter getter with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. Yet it still leaves gaps: no information about what 'details' means, how provider_name maps to a package, or edge cases. The description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for an agent that might need to decide whether to use this tool or a sibling.

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 schema has one required parameter, provider_name, with no description in the schema (schema description coverage is 0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself. The name 'provider_name' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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+resource pattern: 'Gets details of a specific provider package.' It clearly indicates a single-item retrieval, and the word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with list_providers. However, it does not explicitly name this sibling or differentiate further, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need details of one specific provider package, as opposed to list_providers which lists providers. Yet there is no explicit guidance on alternative tools, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied.

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