geo_providers

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

The description discloses that the tool 'ничего не тратит' (spends nothing), which is a behavioral guarantee beyond the schema. It also implies it is a read-only configuration check. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the burden; it could add more detail about what exactly is returned (e.g., list of providers vs. statuses), but the cost-free and non-destructive nature is clearly conveyed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the main purpose first, then the cost implication, then the usage instruction. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, that it is free, and when to call it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact output format or whether it returns a list of providers with statuses, but given the simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about what the tool reports (providers, missing keys, cost), which is useful even though there are no parameters to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 tool's purpose: it lists configured AI answer providers (Yandex, Perplexity, OpenAI, Gemini, Claude), missing keys, where to get them, and call cost. It uses a specific verb ('Какие провайдеры настроены') and resource ('провайдеры ИИ-ответов'), and it is distinguishable from siblings like geo_check_visibility or get_storage_stats.

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 explicitly says to call this tool first before checking visibility ('Вызывать первым перед проверкой видимости'), giving clear usage context. It also states that it costs nothing, which helps an agent decide when to invoke it without risk.

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