mma_get_provider

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency. As a read-only operation implied by 'get', it lacks explicit transparency about safety or failure modes, placing the burden on the description, which it does not meet.

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 a single, concise sentence without unnecessary fluff. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and key details (provider as agent, verified domains) without redundancy.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits critical context about the parameter and any potential variations in output or failure conditions. It gives some context about the provider but lacks completeness due to the missing parameter explanation and no mention of output structure or error cases.

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 schema includes a single required parameter 'id', but the description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., provider ID). With 0% schema coverage for parameters, the description provides no help in understanding how to use the parameter, making it a significant gap.

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 that the tool retrieves the public profile of a provider, specifying that it is the 'agent' behind listings and includes verified domains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing and get_blog, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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