get_provider_docs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds 'provenance-bearing docs' implying reliability, but doesn't expand on behavior like error handling or data format.

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: one for core function, one for usage context. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage order, and filtering. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't explain return format. However, for a straightforward retrieval tool with good annotations, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description reiterates filtering options (topic, category) and emphasizes 'resolved provider,' adding context but not compensating for low coverage since coverage is already high.

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 the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'provider docs', specifying filtering by topic or category. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'resolved provider' and referencing resolve_provider_id as a prerequisite.

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 explicitly says 'Use after resolve_provider_id when you know which provider to inspect and want provenance-bearing docs.' This gives a clear usage context and prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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