get_service_provider_config

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that this is a fixed, static server-capability endpoint and names what the payload reports, but says nothing about caching, rate limits, or whether the max-results value can vary by tenant.

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, capability detail front-loaded, no filler. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the capability categories (authentication, filtering, patch support, max results = 1000), which is enough for an agent to know what it will receive from a parameterless read.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (SCIM service provider configuration) plus the concrete payload contents: authentication, filtering, patch support, max results. No sibling exposes server capability config, so it is unambiguous.

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 it — a fixed server-capability endpoint that takes no parameters — but never states when to call it versus other SCIM discovery tools like list_resource_types or list_schemas, and gives no scenario guidance. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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