get_model_definition

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, yet the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: strong consistency reads, a SHA-256 fingerprint return, and two important caveats that publication state is not reflected and the fingerprint is not a platform lock. That is meaningful context an agent could not get from structured fields.

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 tight sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by scope and caveats. No filler, though the phrasing ('nine basic/choice column types, including expanded choices') is dense jargon that costs more than it returns.

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 no output schema, the description does sketch the return (definition plus fingerprint) and flags two caveats, which is more than most. But for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and a crowded sibling set, the missing parameter guidance and lack of alternative-routing leave real gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load — and it largely does not. It implies that 'table or column' selection hinges on the column parameter, but never names logical_name vs attribute_name, never explains the duplicated camelCase/snake_case aliases, and never states what happens when attribute_name is omitted.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve a complete table or supported column definition and SHA-256 fingerprint.' The table-vs-column duality maps to the optional attribute_name, so an agent can infer scope. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_detailed_field_metadata or get_entity_metadata_summary.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over get_detailed_field_metadata, get_entity_metadata_summary, or get_model_relationship, nor any guidance on when to pass attribute_name versus omitting it. The only usage-adjacent content is a caveat ('Publication state remains unknown'), which is informational rather than directive.

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