List booking providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the underlying GET endpoint, the required bookings:read and luca:read scopes, and the 'redacted' data-sensitivity classification, which matters for an agent reasoning about what it may see.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact block of endpoint, scope, idempotency and workspace notes. The 'Does not require idempotency' line is the weakest, but the metadata lines are terse and each carries an actionable fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies endpoint, auth scopes, data sensitivity and the workspace-override rule, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override a default workspace 'configured by environment', which tells the agent why these params exist rather than just what they are.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List every booking provider') and then extends scope to include capability and connection health, which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling luca_bookings_providers_get without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the call for enumerating providers and their health, and the last line explains how to override the environment-default workspace. There is no explicit when-to-use versus luca_bookings_providers_get, luca_bookings_provider_sync_retry, or the calendars list tools.

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