List and filter providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key behavior: it lists providers, supports filtering, and returns summary rows rather than full evidence. It also points to get_provider for deeper details character. It does not clarify whether filters combine with AND/OR or what happens with no filters, but the core output-granularity behavior is transparent.

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 tightly worded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and filter options; the second adds the return-granularity caveat and routes the agent to get_provider for details. All information 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?

For a list tool with 5 optional filters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it specifies the action, the filter dimensions, and the summary-row return nature. It stops short of explaining whether filters can be combined or whether the result is paginated, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward list endpoint.

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 only 40% (status and country have descriptions) while ssn_itin, provider_type, and non_resident_stance lack schema descriptions. The tool description compensates partially by mapping 'type' to provider_type, 'non-resident stance' to non_resident_stance, and 'SSN/ITIN handling' to ssn_itin, but it does not explain the meaning of individual enum values or how parameters interact beyond what the schema already covers.

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'), a resource ('providers in the index'), and the filtering dimensions (type, non-resident stance, SSN/ITIN handling, status by country). It also differentiates from the sibling get_provider by explicitly saying this tool returns summary rows and get_provider provides the evidence behind any one.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this tool to list/filter providers, and use get_provider when you need the detailed evidence behind a single provider. It does not explicitly mention when to use/avoid the other siblings (check_banking_access, dataset_info), but their names and the stated purpose make the boundary clear enough.

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