odoo_get_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves field definitions but doesn't mention critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and utility. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary words. However, the second sentence ('Useful to understand available fields') could be integrated more seamlessly, slightly affecting structure.

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?

Given the complexity of interacting with an Odoo model, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'field definitions' include (e.g., types, constraints), how errors are handled, or prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns structured metadata, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'model' parameter is well-documented as 'Odoo model name'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional details like examples or constraints, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get field definitions for an Odoo model.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('field definitions'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like odoo_read or odoo_search by focusing on metadata rather than data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., odoo_execute could also retrieve metadata), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance with 'Useful to understand available fields,' suggesting it should be used for schema exploration or preparation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. odoo_read for data), or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context without clear boundaries.

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