Provider Onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds explicit context by stating 'Does not create accounts or issue credentials', reinforcing the non-destructive nature. It also details what information is shown (signup, docs, env vars, status, validation steps), 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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds a crucial negative clarification. It could be improved by integrating parameter hints, but overall efficient.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description adequately states purpose and behavioral guardrails. However, it lacks any guidance on the parameters (provider, capability, implementedOnly) and does not mention any prerequisites or special cases, leaving some gaps for an agent to interpret.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the three parameters (provider, capability, implementedOnly). The description only mentions 'provider access' generically, with no mapping to the specific inputs or their allowed values (e.g., the enum for capability). This leaves the agent without clear guidance on how to populate the parameters.

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 it shows onboarding steps, API docs, credential env vars, status, and validation steps, and explicitly says it does not create accounts or issue credentials. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like provider_status (focused on status) and credential_profiles (focused on credentials).

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 use when onboarding information is needed (e.g., to view setup steps or status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like provider_status or credential_profiles. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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