check_model_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'live metrics and error history' indicates the nature of the returned data. Still, it does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, rate limits, or how stale the metrics might be – meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'detailed live metrics and error history' defines the output, and 'specific free model ID' scopes the input.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate information: it names the input and the high-level output. Minor gaps remain, such as the exact metrics returned or how errors are surfaced, but nothing essential to selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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%, and the description correctly aligns with the single parameter by mentioning 'a specific free model ID.' The description adds no new syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed live metrics and error history') scoped to a specific free model ID. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_free_models or get_fastest_free_model, which focus on listing or selecting models rather than inspecting a single model's status.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a specific free model ID' – an agent would use this when it already has a model ID and needs status details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when this tool should be preferred over siblings, no exclusions, and no mention that list_free_models could provide IDs.

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