Get Provider

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of error behavior for an unknown id, no visibility into what a provider record contains, and no authorization context.

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?

At two words there is no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no content to front-load.

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?

With no output schema, the description was the only place to convey what a fetched provider record looks like or what happens on a missing id, and it does neither. The annotations cover safety, but an agent still lacks enough to call this confidently in a crowded provider/tenant tool family.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing extra such as accepted id formats or whether tenant scope is implied.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The distinction between fetching a provider directly versus via tenants_providers_get, or listing via providers_list, is left entirely to inference from naming.

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