model_info

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 structurally. The description adds genuinely useful scope beyond that: it discloses that the response includes Odoo access rights and this server's own policy decisions, which is non-obvious for a tool named model_info. It still omits error behavior for unknown models and any auth requirements, so it is useful but not rich.

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 sentence fragment with zero padding and the most distinctive payload (access rights, policy) front-loaded after the generic 'model description'. However, the verbless fragment form makes it under-specified rather than crisply concise.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the tool is simple, and the description does gesture at the three things returned. But without an output schema the description should more concretely characterize those return values (shape, whether policy differences cause errors), and it says nothing about behavior for invalid or inaccessible models.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'model' parameter is documented with an example ('res.partner'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 is a noun phrase listing the payload ('model description, Odoo access rights and what this server's policy permits') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that this is a metadata/inspection read. It does name the resource (a model) and hint at non-obvious return content, but it gives no differentiation from siblings like get_model_fields, get_field_names, or list_models, which all sound like overlapping metadata lookups.

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_model_fields, get_field_names, or list_models, and no stated preconditions (e.g. whether the model must exist or the user must have access). The agent is left to guess from the sibling names alone.

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