Get Model Field Parameters

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate those. However, beyond the schema, the description adds no insight into what the response contains, potential errors, or limitations. It is adequate but not helpful.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the essential information. While it could benefit from slightly more detail, it avoids verbosity and is efficient for an agent to parse.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should help the agent understand what 'field parameters' means and what to expect in the response. It does not. The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse to be fully useful on its own.

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?

The input schema coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both 'id' (Resource ID) and 'type' (Model type e.g. htr, la, ocr). The description does not add additional meaning, examples, or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline with no extra value.

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 'Get' and the resource 'field parameters for a model', specifying the required parameters 'type' and 'ID'. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'transkribus_model_get_details' or 'transkribus_model_get', leaving ambiguity about what 'field parameters' specifically refers to.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other model getters). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or contraindications. The agent must rely solely on the tool name and schema to infer usage.

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