list_access_identity_providers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the response looks like, whether pagination applies, or any account-level authorization requirements. For a tool with no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant or filler content. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context: what is listed and at what scope. However, it omits response shape, pagination behavior, and any guidance on when to choose this over related access list tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, account_id, with the description 'The account ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description's phrase 'for an account' adds minimal reinforcement but no new format, source, or usage detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 is clear and specific: 'List Access identity providers for an account' names the verb ('List'), the resource ('Access identity providers'), and the scope ('for an account'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_access_identity_provider or list_access_apps, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_access_identity_provider or other list_access_* tools. The intended context is only implied by the word 'List'; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria stated.

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