get_model_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and states what information is returned, but it does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens for an invalid model_id. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not fully transparent.

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 description is well-structured: a brief main sentence, a focused trigger list, a cross-reference to list_models, and a parameter detail section. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded. Length is appropriate for the functionality.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the core use cases, the parameter format, and the relationship to list_models. It could be more complete by describing the exact return structure or error handling, but the tool's simplicity keeps the requirement reasonably low.

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?

The schema only specifies that model_id is a string. The description adds the crucial semantic: 'Full model ID' and provides a concrete example ('anthropic/claude-sonnet-4'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and prevents an agent from passing a partial or incorrect ID.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific OpenRouter model') and lists the key content (Pricing, context, description). This clearly distinguishes it from list_models, which lists model IDs, while this tool fetches details for one model.

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 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section explicitly enumerates when to call this tool: when you have a model ID and need full details, when checking pricing/context limits, or when evaluating suitability. It also directs the agent to use list_models first to find model IDs, which is clear guidance on how it relates to a sibling tool.

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