validate_data_provider

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies that credentials are sourced from environment variables (so no credential parameters needed) and that the return is a status with error details. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which are consistent with a test operation.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds key behavioral details (credential source and return type). Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple test tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it tests, which providers, credential input, and return content. It lacks details on potential error scenarios or setup prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the four valid provider values in the text, providing context that the parameter selects a market data provider. Although it doesn't describe each provider in depth, it clarifies the enum's purpose.

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 tool's purpose: 'Test market data provider connectivity' with specific verb 'Test' and resource 'market data provider connectivity'. It enumerates the four allowed providers (polygon, databento, onyx, fred) in the description, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_broker_connection and connect_broker which deal with broker connectivity.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to test connectivity) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides no exclusion criteria or context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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