get_model_choices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are 'bounded', carry 'multilingual labels and a fingerprint', and 'report shared global references without silently retargeting a later write' – disclosing that shared globals are surfaced rather than mutated, which is non-obvious and useful.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and mode gating before behavioral caveats. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 tool with no output schema and covered safety annotations, the description supplies the mode selection, output characteristics (labels, fingerprint, shared-reference reporting), and mutation caution. It is nearly complete; only the sibling differentiation is missing.

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 param meaning, and it does explain the oneOf gating: supply either global_choice_name or a table/column pair ('logical_name' + 'attribute_name'). It does not clarify that the six properties are three logical params with camelCase aliases, but the core selection logic is conveyed.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('Boolean/Picklist/MultiSelectPicklist options') with scope qualifiers (global or local, native, bounded). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'get_field_picklist_options', which sounds like it retrieves the same thing, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the schemas.

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?

'Explicit global_choice_name OR a table/column pair' tells the agent the two valid invocation modes, which is real guidance on how to call it. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over 'get_field_picklist_options' or the create/change/publish choice tools, so alternative selection is left implied.

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