get_provider

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that the response includes 'limits, rate settings, expiration, and reset status,' which informs the agent about the richness of the data. No contradictions with 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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the action and included data, the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words; every sentence adds 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is complete: it explains the tool's function, included data, and use case. No gaps given the low complexity of a single-resource fetch operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for 'slug' and 'workspace_id'. The description adds the phrase 'by slug', but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Fetch one provider by slug' – a specific verb+resource. It details the data returned (limits, rate settings, expiration, reset status) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_providers and update_provider by focusing on a single entity and use case.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to check consumption or audit configuration before updating.' This guides the agent to use it for auditing or pre-update checks. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context is sufficient to differentiate from list_providers or update_provider.

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