Inspect Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that `health` performs a live outbound probe subject to provider rate limits and may be slow, that `list`/`spec` are local snapshots, and that the tool never modifies configuration. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the negative guidance follows, and the per-action breakdown is dense but each clause carries distinct information. The middle sentence is long and semi-colon chained, but nothing is padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back ('an [OK] or [ERROR] JSON envelope with status, provider, and results'), covers every action, the required parameter, and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `provider` is required specifically for the `health` action and is a slug, and `status` acts as a filter on the list snapshot rather than an action. It only stops short of documenting the concrete `active`/`all` enum values.

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 concrete verb ('Inspect') and resource ('configured search providers') and enumerates the three sub-operations (list state, live health check, build/spec identity). It explicitly distinguishes itself from infobroker_search_web and infobroker_fetch_page, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a positive trigger ('when searches return empty or slow results', 'when choosing which backend to trust') and explicit exclusions with named alternatives ('Do NOT use to search (use infobroker_search_web) or to read a page (use infobroker_fetch_page)'). This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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