Get a Relay model

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

Annotations only supply readOnly/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the response is auth-dependent ('with a credential the answer is your account's view ... public otherwise'), which materially changes how the agent should interpret results. Missing rate limits or how availability is expressed, so not a top score.

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, front-loaded with the return fields, followed by the credential caveat and the follow-up action. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the account-vs-public variability. For a one-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% with a single required parameter already documented as 'Exact model name from search_models, e.g. ...'. The description does not add format or naming guidance beyond that, so the schema does the work; 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Returns one model's route, request_schema, request_example, pricing and availability') and enumerates exactly what comes back. This clearly separates it from search_models (discovery) and get_pricing (cost-only) without the agent needing to open the schema.

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?

"Then call run_model with an input shaped like request_example" gives an explicit next step and sequencing, which is strong guidance. It stops short of naming when to prefer search_models first (only the schema carries "Exact model name from search_models") or when to skip get_model in favor of get_pricing, so no exclusion rules.

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