Price provider status

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

With annotations already covering read/write and idempotency (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds rich behavioral context: providers form a failover pool, requests try them in order, and skip unconfigured or cooling-down ones. It also explains exactly what clearCooldowns does to internal state and when that mutation is warranted. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: first the output scope, then the failover model and diagnostic value, then the single parameter's use case. Nothing is redundant and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description leaves no material gap. It covers what is shown, why the provider pool behaves as it does, and exactly when to clear cooldowns.

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 100% and the parameter is already documented as 'Forget every recorded cap and retry all providers.' The description still adds value by explaining when clearing cooldowns is appropriate — after a daily quota reset or a plan upgrade — which is beyond the schema's mechanical description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Show every price provider" and enumerates exactly what is shown (key presence, call rate, free-tier cap status). This is far beyond restating the name and lets an agent distinguish it from sibling status tools like cache_status or setup_status.

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?

It clearly describes the diagnostic context — answering 'why did that quote come from there?' and 'why is this slow?' — and gives a concrete condition for passing clearCooldowns. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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