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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the security implication of 'public' link_visibility (anyone with the link can read, even if the roster lists only the owner), notes that the model URL is the same for access and sharing, and clarifies that changing visibility is owner-only via the web app. This goes well beyond the annotation and gives the agent accurate expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds necessary context about link_visibility and permissions. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler. The structure flows from what it does, to the return details, to usage notes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does thoroughly: the roster contents (owner, collaborators, pending invites with role and id) and the link_visibility field with its two possible values and their implications. It also notes the URL equivalence and availability to read-only keys. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing essential 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?

The input schema already describes model_id with 100% coverage, including when it is required vs. ignored. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no meaningful extra information about the parameter itself.

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 opens with 'Read a model's sharing roster' – a specific verb and resource – and then details exactly what is returned (owner, collaborators, pending invites with role and id, plus link_visibility). It clearly distinguishes this from the mutation siblings like share_model and revoke_share by framing it as a read operation. The scope is unambiguous.

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 states that the tool is read-only and available to any member including read-only API keys, and explicitly notes that changing link visibility is not possible via this API (done in the web app). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for granting/revoking access (e.g., layerz_share_model, layerz_revoke_share) or state conditions when to use those instead. The read-only context is clear, but sibling routing is left to inference.

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