Get model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a cost (10 credits) and the delisted-model behavior (is_delisted=1 plus days_since_gone), which is genuinely useful non-schema context. It stops short of describing error handling for a missing id.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a dense parenthetical field list, then the delisted edge case and cost. Every element is informative given the absence of an output schema, though the field enumeration reads as a run-on list rather than cleanly separated clauses.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned sections (classification, family, size, files, quantizations, benchmarks, README, author summary). It also flags the delisted variant and the credit cost. Only the not-found/error case is unspecified.

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 'id' parameter is documented with a concrete example (author/name form). The description adds no format or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full record for one model') and anchors it to the endpoint GET /models/{id}. The word 'Full record for one model' cleanly separates it from search_models and get_author, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required 'id' parameter and the GET /models/{id} path signal that this is a single-record lookup once an id is known. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_models or get_author, nor any exclusions.

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