list_media_providers

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which lowers the bar. The description adds a mild qualifier by saying 'available' providers, but does not disclose return format, potentially missing providers, or other behavioral constraints. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the raw GET endpoint. No fluff, although the endpoint line adds only minor value.

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 list operation with output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not define what a 'media provider' is or differentiate this from siblings, so an agent could still pick a related tool without clear semantic context.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain semantically. This matches the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get the list of available media providers.' It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_media_subscriptions or list_media_grabbers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description merely restates the operation without helping an agent decide between this and similarly named media list tools.

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