List provision functions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by naming example function types and clarifying that the output is intended for use with trigger_provision, which goes beyond 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 two sentences: the first states the core action with examples, the second gives the next-step guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted 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 list tool with two well-specified parameters and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed, examples of functions, and how to use the result. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.

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?

Both parameters have descriptive schema entries (Contract UUID, Contract product UUID), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add explicit parameter syntax or details beyond the schema, but it implies the identifiers needed for the operation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists provision functions on a contract product, with specific examples (setup, suspend, terminate, getUsage). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_provision_fields by specifying that the returned function id is used with trigger_provision.

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 explicitly says to use the returned function id with trigger_provision, indicating the primary workflow and when this tool is useful. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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