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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, but the description contributes real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing that calls are billed per token (a cost side-effect) and mapping to the POST /embeddings endpoint. It still omits rate limits, auth requirements, and batching behavior. No contradiction with annotations, since it makes no claim about mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the billing caveat. The endpoint mapping ('Together: POST /embeddings') earns its place for API alignment. Minimal waste.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. However, with no output schema present it does not indicate what is returned (embedding vectors), and it omits model guidance, leaving modest gaps for an agent to fill.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the 'one or more texts' scope for 'input'. It says nothing extra about model selection beyond what the schema example provides. 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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') plus resource ('vector embeddings') and scope ('one or more texts'). The resource is unambiguous and separable from siblings such as together_chat_completion and together_generate_image without opening any schema.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description never tells the agent which sibling to prefer (e.g. embeddings vs. chat completion) or what the prerequisites are.

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