get_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new traits: the call is free, pricing returned is only 'indicative', and media must be public URLs because local upload is unsupported. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned schema, but for a read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the free-cost fact and immediately followed by the purpose. Every sentence carries information, though 'Free.' as a standalone fragment reads as a bullet-list artifact rather than smoothly integrated framing.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, input-sourcing rules, and the media constraint. The only meaningful omission is where the endpoint_id comes from and what the response actually contains, both of which an agent could reasonably want.

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 fully documented in the schema, including its link to search_models/get_model. The description adds no format, casing, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than any uplift.

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 plus the two things returned: the model's input schema and an indicative starting price in USD. That is far more informative than the name 'get_model'. It does not name or contrast with search_models (which supplies the endpoint_id this tool requires), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Never invent inputs' and 'use public HTTPS URLs for media; local file upload is unavailable' are real invocation constraints that steer behavior. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_models for discovery or quote for pricing, which is the main decision an agent faces among these siblings.

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