get_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the return fields (pricing, tier, SIT score, quality-adjusted price), making the output behavior clear. It does not mention error handling or permission requirements, but for a simple get-by-id lookup this is adequate.

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 is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a minimal Args section and a Returns list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 a single required parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, how to specify the model, and what to expect in return. It fits well within the sibling tool set, where get_model_history clearly covers historical data and this tool's 'current pricing' differentiates it.

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?

The input schema only defines model_id as a string with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that it is a 'Canonical model id' and providing concrete examples for two providers, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with 'Get full detail + current pricing for one model by its id,' which states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this single-model lookup from search_models, list_providers, and history/composite tools by emphasizing 'one model' and 'current pricing.'

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 phrase 'by its id' and the provided id examples establish that this tool is for retrieving details when the exact canonical model id is known. It implies use cases and leaves discovery to search_models, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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