list_composite_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds domain context (what HCPRs are) but does not disclose behavior such as result limits, pagination, ordering, whether it performs a read-only scan, or response characteristics. Listing implies non-destructiveness, but the description relies on that inference rather than stating it.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a genuinely useful definition of the domain concept rather than filler. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the domain concept and resource type. The main gaps are routing guidance versus siblings and explicit behavioral disclosure, which are minor for a straightforward list tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (info_area, max_results, search_term) with defaults and wildcard semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') + resource ('CompositeProviders / HCPRs') + system ('BW'), and the second sentence explains what an HCPR is. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_adsos, list_infoobjects, and list_queries without needing to open their schemas.

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 purpose, but there is no explicit routing guidance. The description does not mention alternatives such as search_bw_objects or list_infoarea_contents, nor does it state when this tool should NOT be used. Adequate for a self-explanatory list tool, but no exclusions or when/when-not conditions are provided.

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