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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two things the annotations do not: what the call yields (name, preview, link — important given there is no output schema) and the cost profile ("Free"), which matters alongside get_credits/get_prices siblings.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the identifier hint and the return contents trailing in a useful order. No filler clauses.

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-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers action, scope, returned content, and cost. What is missing is minor: how to obtain the id (deferred to the schema) and what happens with an invalid or non-owned id.

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 model_id field already documents its source (list_models or get_task). The description only restates "by model_id" without adding format, validity, or error semantics, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Show ... models in the 3D viewer") plus the keying parameter (model_id). The phrase "one of the user's own models" scopes it apart from gallery-browsing siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you show a model you already own, keyed by an id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus export_model, rig_model, or browse_gallery, and the id provenance appears only in the schema, not the description.

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