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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that generating a video with this model consumes credits, which is useful cost-awareness information. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether the tool makes changes, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'full capabilities' means in practice.

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_for esse: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose arrives: first sentence, and the important cost warning comes second. It could be slightly more concise if it merged both into one sentence, but it's already efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not explain what 'full capabilities' means, what fields are returned, or how the model parameter should be structured. It covers the key availability: consuming credits, but overall the description is thin for an agent deciding whether or how to invoke this tool.

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?

With a single parameter ('model') and 0% schema description coverage, the schema offers almost no semantic information beyond the parameter name. The description doesn't explain what values 'model' should take (e.g., model IDs or names) or how to obtain them, so the agent must infer that from context. It's minimally sufficient but not helpful.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get full capabilities and credit pricing for one video model.' This distinguishes it from listing tools like list_video_models and from other get_* tools by specifying it targets a single video model. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from get_image_model or get_credits, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 implies this tool is for querying a single video model's capabilities and pricing, which gives some context for when to use it versus list_video_models. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use an alternative or exclude other tools, leaving the when-to-use guidance mostly implied rather than explicit.

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