List model provider configs

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, idempotent read operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering/sorting/pagination happen server-side, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about default page size, ordering defaults, or any access constraints on orgID scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its three query capabilities, with zero filler. It would be hard to trim without losing information.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an 80%-documented schema, this covers the essentials; the cursor description in the schema even implies the next_cursor return field. It stops short of noting anything about the required orgID scope or default result ordering.

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 80%, so the schema already explains name (glob), sort, limit, and cursor in detail. The description only re-summarizes those capabilities at a high level and adds nothing about the required orgID parameter, which is undocumented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('model provider configs'), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as model_providers_catalog or model_providers_get, but the list semantics are clear from the name and description combined.

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 mention of server-side filtering, sorting, and cursor pagination implies how the tool is meant to be used (querying a collection), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like model_providers_get or the catalog tool. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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