list_providers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and a brief note on the history parameter, but it doesn't disclose any non-obvious behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or response structure. With annotations covering the main traits, a 3 is appropriate for the limited additional context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The inclusion of 'GET /api/providers' provides the exact endpoint, which is useful. The args line is brief but structured. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and wastes no words.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description covers the essential facts: what it does and what the parameter means. It lacks usage context and differentiation from siblings, but the output schema handles return values. The missing usage guidance is a notable gap, but overall the description is adequate for its complexity.

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 has zero description coverage for the history parameter, but the description explicitly explains it as 'Provider name for history stats.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose. It doesn't go into great detail, but it's sufficient for a single optional parameter.

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 gets providers status, specifying a concrete action and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_providers_episodes or list_providers_movies, which likely have different scopes. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for a tool with several provider-related siblings.

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