read_model_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the 'Gen only' restriction on the story parameters and the note that id-keyed entries are 'capped like read_table', but says nothing about return shape or how capping actually behaves.

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?

Front-loads the key differentiator ('computed, not stored in a table') before the parameter breakdown, and every clause about the `what` values earns its place. The compressed 'what:' list is dense but readable.

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 read-only three-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the main selection dimension and product restriction adequately. Minor gaps remain around the `limit` semantics and what the capping actually returns.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain all five `what` values with concrete meaning plus the Gen-only constraint on two of them. It leaves `limit` (only alluded to via 'capped like read_table') and `product` unexplained, but those are lower-risk given the enums.

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 resource: model-wide computed information, explicitly contrasted with 'not stored in a table', which separates it from read_table/list_tables. An agent can tell what kind of data this returns without opening the schema, though the verb is only implied by the name.

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 parenthetical glosses on each `what` value function as selection guidance for the main parameter, and 'not stored in a table' implicitly routes away from read_table. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no direct routing to siblings like model_summary.

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