provider_query_oidc_relying_parties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered; the description adds nothing beyond that. It restates the GET path already present in the annotation title and says nothing about pagination behavior, page-size limits, or what a 'relying party' record contains.

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?

It is short, but the first two sentences are redundant restatements ('Retrieve OIDC relying parties' / 'Get a list of all OIDC relying parties'), and the third is a verbatim endpoint already captured in the annotation title. Roughly half the content 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 simple read-only paginated list with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It does not explain what the returned relying-party objects look like (no output schema exists to cover that), leaving a modest gap.

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% and every parameter (page, pageSize, filter in FIQL, sortAsc, sortDesc) is documented in the schema. The description's only reference is the generic phrase 'meeting the query parameters', so baseline 3 applies with no added semantics.

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 names a specific resource (OIDC relying parties) and a specific operation (retrieve/list), including the underlying endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular provider_get_oidc_relying_party by emphasizing 'a list of all', but never routes to or names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus provider_get_oidc_relying_party, provider_register_oidc_relying_party, or provider_query_* siblings, and no preconditions or exclusions. The only hint of usage is 'meeting the query parameters', which is inferred rather than stated.

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