Inspect Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces read-only behavior and states it never modifies configuration, providers, or stored data. It adds useful detail about the JSON envelope prefix ([OK] or [ERROR]) and the meaning of actions, exceeding what annotations alone convey, though it does not discuss authentication or external side effects of a live health check.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically into usage guidance, exclusions, safety, and parameter specifics. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with three well-covered parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains all three actions, the return envelope, conditional parameter requirements, and both positive and negative usage cases. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds meaningful relationships: provider is required for the health action and status filters list. This goes beyond the schema's generic field descriptions by clarifying conditional usage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('configured search providers'), then enumerates the concrete actions (list state, live health check, build/spec identity). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools, naming web_search and fetch_page as the tools this is not, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting other 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context: when searches return empty or slow results and provider status, quota, or latency matter, or when choosing a trusted backend. It also provides a clear 'Do NOT use' directive with named alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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