get_model_fields

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 a hint about the shape of the returned data (type, relation, required), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it omits filtering/pagination behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core resource front-loaded and no waste. It is arguably too terse for a two-parameter tool, but nothing is padded.

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 read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally viable, but it leaves the role of 'attributes' and the actual return format unexplained, and gives no routing against closely related siblings like get_field_names.

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 only 50%: 'model' is documented with an example ('res.partner'), but the 'attributes' array parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, so the agent cannot tell whether it filters, expands, or restricts the fields returned. With low coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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 specific resource ('field definitions of a model') and enumerates what the definitions contain ('type, relation, required...'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_field_names by promising richer metadata, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_field_names, model_info, or list_models, all of which sound adjacent. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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