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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot carry: that the call does not process a document and is normally not billed, plus the underlying endpoint paths.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a scope disclaimer and the endpoint paths. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint strings are somewhat boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the call returns ('every field it can extract'). Combined with the billing note and endpoint references, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the missing sibling routing keeps it short of full completeness.

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%, so both parameters (model enum and configuration_slug) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'optionally for one configuration' restates the optional/modelling relationship and the endpoint shows the slug placement, but it adds little beyond the structured fields - the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('The JSON schema of what a capturing model returns, every field it can extract') and clarifies it does not process documents, which separates it from the capture tools. It does not, however, name the closest sibling dochorizon_get_prompt_schema, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Does not process a document; normally not billed' gives the agent clear context on what this call is and is not, steering away from the capture siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. get_prompt_schema for prompt-based models), so it is clear but not a full when/when-not routing rule.

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