Get model provider catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful traits: it blocks on the upstream provider (latency), validates the configured credential (a failure mode), and 'can report failure as data', which is important for how an agent should interpret the response. It does not discuss permissions or credential-rotation prerequisites, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the latency/failure caveats after it. Every clause earns its place.

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 wisely warns that failures can arrive as data, which is the key interpretive detail an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unexplained parameters and no hint at return shape, but for a 2-param read-only tool this is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them and it says nothing about orgID or modelProviderConfigID. The patterned names are largely self-describing, but the description adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: fetches the provider's live model catalog, and it explains the mechanism (validating the configured credential, probing the provider's /models endpoint). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling model_providers_get (config retrieval) and models_list, which an agent can tell apart without opening a 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?

The sentence 'slower than the other model provider config routes' gives comparative guidance that steers an agent toward the cheaper config routes when a live catalog probe is not needed. However, it never names the alternative tool or states an explicit when-not condition, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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