list_providers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and it does so well: it discloses that key values are never returned, that results include live usability state and chain ordering, plus active search mode and fan-out width/grace. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or cost/latency, but nothing contradicts a read-only listing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the concrete reason to call it. Every clause adds information (fields returned, security guarantee, routing purpose) with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still previews the key result fields, which is a bonus rather than a redundancy. For a zero-parameter listing tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's reference to the `providers` argument belongs to sibling tools, not this one, but that context is still useful for connecting the call to downstream usage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every provider this server knows') and enumerates exactly what is reported: capabilities, usability, enabled state, and 1-based chain positions. This is clearly distinct from the action siblings web_search and web_fetch, which it explicitly references.

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?

Gives a concrete usage trigger: 'Use it to decide what to pass in web_search/web_fetch `providers`.' That is a clear routing context. It does not state any when-not conditions or alternative discovery paths, so it falls just short of the top band.

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