borderou_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies this as a read/list operation (the verb 'List' clearly signals non-mutating behavior), which is the core safety signal. It doesn't disclose whether provider availability changes, whether the companyId parameter affects results, or any rate-limit/caching behavior, but for a discovery/lookup endpoint the description is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence names the exact operation and resource, the second clarifies what is returned and why it matters. Nothing is wasted.

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/discovery tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is complete. No output schema exists, but the description pre-empts the need by stating what is returned (supported banks and file formats). The complexity is low, so nothing critically missing.

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% and the lone parameter (companyId) is well-documented in the schema as a company UUID override. The description adds purpose context by clarifying how the result is used (bank statement import and reconciliation), which complements the schema. Since there's only one optional param and it's fully documented, minimal extra description is needed.

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 clear verb+resource ('List available borderou providers') and explains what the tool returns (supported banks and file formats for bank statement import and reconciliation). It's distinguishable from siblings; while einvoice_providers and storage_config_providers exist nearby, the explicit 'borderou (bank statement)' context disambiguates it.

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 implies the tool is used for discovering banks/file formats prior to borderou import or reconciliation, which is a reasonable context cue. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this against related tools like borderou_transactions or borderou_upload, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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