Verify model inference (billable)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so description doesn't need to restate those. It adds extra value by disclosing 'may consume credits', 'never runs automatically, never retries or fails over', and 'non-sensitive generation' – all beyond annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then packs in the key constraints (billable, automatic, retry/failover) with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 verification tool with no output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the critical behavioral context: cost, non-automatic execution, and no retries. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., generated text or success/failure), but the purpose 'prove access' implies a result. Given the low complexity, this is sufficient, though an explicit return description would be a nice addition.

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 all parameters are already described in the schema. The description repeats the confirm_billable requirement and adds 'may consume credits', which gives business context to that parameter, but does not enrich the other parameters beyond schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), a clear resource ('provider:model'), and states the goal ('prove inference access'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like health_check (which likely checks connectivity without generating) and list_models/discover_models (which are about discovering models, not verifying inference). The phrase 'one minimal, non-sensitive generation' clarifies scope and differentiates from a full test.

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 description gives clear context: it's used to prove inference access to a specific provider:model and requires confirm_billable=true. It also states it 'never runs automatically, never retries or fails over', which are important usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for non-billable checks) or name alternatives, though that is inferable from the 'prove access' purpose.

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