get_llm_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action (fetch) without mentioning side effects, idempotency, access requirements, or response characteristics. An agent cannot determine if this is a safe read operation or has any constraints.

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 a single sentence that directly states purpose and key parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks any context about return format, error handling, or when to prefer this over the similar sibling tool, which could lead to misuse.

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?

The parameter provider_id has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying it is 'numeric ID'. For a single integer parameter with a self-explanatory name, this minimal addition brings the parameter semantics to an adequate level though it doesn't explain valid ranges or formats.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a specific LLM provider' and specifies the key parameter 'by its numeric ID', distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_llm_provider_by_name which uses name lookup. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'specific LLM provider' are precise and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_llm_provider_by_name, nor any context about prerequisites, error conditions, or limitations. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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