provider_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool reports enabled/configured status and gives a concrete example (missing API keys make a provider unavailable). It does not describe the output structure, but it narrows the meaning of 'health' to configuration readiness.

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 concise sentences convey the tool's purpose, behavior, an example, and the optional filter without unnecessary detail. The core behavior is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns conceptually, and an example failure condition. It doesn't spell out the exact return payload, but the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the optional tag parameter. The description only restates 'Optionally filter by tag' and adds no new details beyond the schema examples.

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 ('Report') and resource ('availability/health of search providers'), and clarifies that it returns whether each provider is enabled and configured. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_providers, which likely only enumerate providers.

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 provider availability/health status—and notes the optional tag filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with list_providers or compare_engines, nor does it state when not to use it.

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