Ask a model

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond the annotations: zero-data-retention routing and that Obscurify.ai does not store prompts, plus the default model and its cost/speed tradeoff. Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with both. It stops short of covering latency, per-call billing, or what the reply payload looks like.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the routing guidance; nothing is buried. Slight redundancy in restating the default model that the schema already carries, which keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

Covers what an agent needs to call this correctly: single-turn scope, privacy posture, default model, and where to go for alternatives. With no output schema, the omission of return-shape detail (token usage, finish reason) is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented with defaults, ranges and enum values; the description's default-model note duplicates the schema's own 'model' field text. It adds only the cross-reference to list_models for discovering valid model IDs, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('send one prompt to any Obscurify.ai model and get its reply') and immediately fixes the scope as single-shot, which is what separates it from the sibling chat tool. The one-line rationale about why you'd delegate to another model adds intent, not just mechanics.

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?

Names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: follow-ups needing earlier turns go to chat, comparisons go to second_opinion, model discovery goes to list_models. Both exclusions and the pointer for valid model IDs are explicit, leaving nothing to inference.

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