FN2 AI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the response contents (tiers and plan locks per model), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether locked models are included or omitted.

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?

One short sentence with the scope and payload front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly weakens the opening but wastes no words.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is close to adequate: it names the model set and the notable return fields. It still leaves gaps an agent must discover at call time, such as whether plan-locked models appear in the results and how the 'surface' filter changes the set.

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% and the single optional 'surface' parameter is fully documented in the schema as chat or agent. The description adds no syntax, default-behavior, or omission semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, but it does identify the resource (models available to the account) and hints at the payload (tiers, plan locks). It never explicitly says 'list' or 'returns', so the action must be inferred from the tool name, and there are no siblings to differentiate against.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of when not to call it. With no sibling tools the alternatives clause is moot, but the description still gives the agent nothing about the context in which this lookup is appropriate.

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