or_generation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields and the source of the generation_id, which conveys that this is a read-only lookup. It does not mention error cases or auth requirements, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation and the identifier, the second lists the returned data and a concrete use case. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the input, explains where the input comes from, and lists the return fields. Sibling tools are not confused with this tool. No further context is needed.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter, including the example 'gen-abc123'. The description reinforces that the ID is returned by OpenRouter but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a single inference call by its generation_id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting a single call identifier and listing the exact details returned (cost, tokens, latency, finish reason, provider).

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 a clear use case: 'useful when an agent needs to explain why a specific call cost what it did.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the context is unambiguous for a single-generation lookup.

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