list_email_providers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds that the output contains setup instructions and App Password guidance, but since an output schema exists, most return-content disclosure is already covered by structured data, leaving only modest added value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the reason to call it first. Every phrase earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 no-argument read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns and when to reach for it.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 and resource ('List supported email providers') plus what it returns ('their setup instructions'), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not name a sibling for contrast, though 'Call this first' implicitly positions it before connect_email.

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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance ('Call this first to show the user which providers are supported') and states the user-facing purpose (generating an App Password). There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but for a zero-param informational tool the context is sufficient to disambiguate from connect_email/connection_status.

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