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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: tenant scoping and the empty-result rule ('an asset your tenant does not hold returns no models'). It does not mention pagination, result limits, or auth beyond tenant binding, but the read-only nature and scope are clear enough for correct invocation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return contents, followed by the scoping constraint and the sibling routing. The parenthetical model-type list is dense but directly useful, and nothing is redundant.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (base model, type, detection source) and the model categories, so the agent knows what to expect. Combined with the tenant semantics and the sibling handoff, nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents tenant_id's binding/rejection rules and asset_hash's SHA-1 format. The description only implies the asset argument ('a specific asset') and adds no format or syntax detail, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the Model Library records') with an explicit enumeration of the model types returned (checkpoints, UNETs, LoRAs, VAEs, CLIP, upscalers). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling GetAssetDetails by stating what that tool covers instead.

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?

It names an alternative (GetAssetDetails) and the condition that selects it (prompt and ComfyUI workflow graph), which is strong routing. It stops short of covering the other plausible overlapping sibling, GetModelDetails/GetModelVersions, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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