tebra_get_providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and lists returned fields, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any potential limitations like server-side filters beyond the optional practiceName. No contradictions.

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, minimal wording, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 optional parameter, no output schema, 100% schema coverage), the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, and return fields. It could optionally mention if there is pagination or a limit, but the gap is minor.

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% (one parameter described). The description adds meaning by stating that omitting the filter returns all providers and that the tool is used for name-to-ID resolution, which goes beyond the schema's bare description of 'Optional practice name filter'.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'providers' with the exact fields returned (IDs, names, specialties, NPI, active status). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning its use case: resolving provider names to IDs for appointments and encounters.

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 explains when to use the tool ('Used to resolve provider names to IDs for appointments and encounters'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use, but the use case is specific enough.

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