Get model

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's extra burden is low. It contributes by disclosing what the response contains and the caveat that pricing is returned 'when available', which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the usage context. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the return fields, and annotations cover safety. It only lacks guidance on error cases (e.g., unknown model ID) or how it relates to the pricing/model-listing siblings.

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 parameter ('model': 'The model ID') is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, lookup, or ID-syntax detail beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves current model details') and enumerates the payload contents (supported operations, request parameters, endpoints, selector limits, pricing). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like list_models or get_model_pricing, but the detail level is well above tautology.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: 'Non-chat integrations should read these current model-specific request details before creating a request,' establishing the precondition for calling it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_model_pricing or list_models), so it's a 4, not a 5.

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