or_model_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds valuable context about the fields returned (pricing, context length, uptime). However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, authentication needs, pagination, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 exceptionally concise: a single top-level sentence with a clarifying parenthetical and a separate usage sentence. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it lists) is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and return fields. It lacks explicit notes on read-only behavior or pagination, but the provided use case and data field enumeration make the tool's operation clear enough for most scenarios.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (slug and author) with examples, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('provider endpoints for a specific model'), enumerating the key returned fields (pricing, context length, uptime). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like or_model_get (which likely returns model metadata) and or_zdr_endpoints (which targets a different endpoint type).

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 includes a clear use case: 'Use this when picking the cheapest or most-stable provider for a model.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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