or_model_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral transparency. It does describe the return content (description, context, modalities, etc.), which gives the agent a sense of what to expect. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether any authentication is needed, or any rate limit/error behaviors. It adds some value but lacks richer disclosure expected for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a single model by id'), followed by a concise enumeration of returned fields. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and return content. It is missing some contextual guidance, such as when to use this versus sibling list tools, but it provides sufficient information for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 describes the 'id' parameter with the same example ('anthropic/claude-opus-4.7') and states it is the model id. The tool description repeats this information but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description offers no extra parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool fetches full details for a single model by id, listing exact returned fields (description, context, modalities, pricing, supported parameters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like or_models (likely a list) and or_model_endpoints (likely endpoints), so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Get full details of a single model by id' implies the use case of retrieving detailed information when a specific model id is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., or_models for listing) or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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