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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds one useful behavioral caveat — results do not guarantee plan entitlements — but does not disclose return format, auth needs, or other operational details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of it contributes to understanding what the tool returns and one important caveat.

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 tool with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify the expected model identifier and the shape/meaning of returned access destinations. It gives only a high-level summary and a caveat, leaving key invocation and interpretation details 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 schema has one required parameter ('model') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or clarify the parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('official and optional commercial access destinations'), making clear that the tool surfaces where a model can be accessed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from model-information siblings like get_model or find_model, but the purpose is still inferable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as best_model_for, find_model, or compare_models. The tool name implies usage, but the description itself provides no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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