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

No annotations are provided that usefully describe safety (destructiveHint=true is present but unexplained), so the description carries real burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits beyond the schema: the call is non-streaming and is billed per token. It says nothing about auth, latency, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and billing note, then the endpoint routing tip. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but thin: it covers the main action, cost, and streaming behavior, yet omits response shape expectations and any error/failure context. Nothing is misleading, but an agent must lean on the schema for most semantics.

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 60%, and several tuning params (top_k, top_p, temperature, repetition_penalty) have no descriptions anywhere. The description compensates partially by explaining the model argument can take a dedicated endpoint slug, but it leaves the sampling parameters unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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 (run a chat completion) and resource (Together model), and disambiguates from siblings like together_create_embeddings and together_generate_image by naming the exact operation. The non-streaming qualifier and the Together API path further pin down the purpose.

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 by the name rather than stated: there is no when-to-use vs. sibling guidance, and no conditions for choosing this over embeddings or image generation. The one routing hint given ('For a dedicated endpoint pass its <project_slug>/<endpoint_slug> as the model') is about parameter form, not tool selection.

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