get_field_names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notable trait that the payload is 'compact' (field names plus type and label only), implying a lightweight response, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior for unknown models.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler; the returned attributes are stated immediately. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than model conciseness.

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 one-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, and the description does hint at return content (name, type, label) despite there being no output schema. However, it leaves the sibling-selection question (get_model_fields vs model_info) and edge-case behavior unexplained.

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 single `model` parameter is already documented with an example ('res.partner'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 clear verb-equivalent ('list') and a specific resource ('a model's field names'), plus the returned attributes (type and label). It does not differentiate from the sibling get_model_fields or model_info, which sound like overlapping read paths, so the agent can't tell from the description alone which to pick.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_model_fields, model_info, or list_models. The agent must infer that this is the lightweight metadata lookup rather than the fuller field-definition tool.

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