retrieve

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'intelligent concurrent processing', 'optimized caching', and 'table pagination for large databases exceeding token limits'. While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and idempotency, the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent understand performance characteristics and limitations.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, key capabilities/limitations, and special handling for edge cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the most important information (what it does) comes first.

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?

Given the rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides good contextual information about capabilities and limitations. The main gap is the absence of an output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by indicating what kind of details will be fetched. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'multiple IDs (max 50 per request)' and 'table pagination for large databases' which aligns with but doesn't significantly expand upon the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('additional details for supported models') with specific model types listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list', 'search', and 'export' by focusing on retrieving details for specific IDs rather than listing, searching, or exporting data.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (fetching details for specific models with IDs) and mentions limitations (max 50 IDs, pagination for large databases). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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