Get model pricing

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 explicitly enumerates the return fields (input/output/cached price per 1M tokens, blended cost, context window, modality, release date, and page URL) and identifies the id source. It does not mention read-only behavior or error handling, but the verb 'Get' and return-focused wording make the core behavior quite transparent.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then concisely enumerates the returned details. Every clause adds value, with 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only pricing lookup tool, this description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, what the input should be, where the input comes from, and exactly what data is returned. It lacks an explicit statement about behavior for an invalid or unknown model_id, but that is a minor gap given the overall clarity and lack of an output schema.

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 a complete, well-described parameter (model_id) with examples and the instruction to get ids from search_models, putting schema coverage at 100. The tool description only repeats the id source without adding any additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action (get full pricing and capability details), a specific resource (one model by its id), and the id source (from search_models). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'one model' and listing detailed pricing/capability fields, which is different from comparing or listing cheapest models.

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 'by its id (from search_models)' provides clear workflow context: the agent should first use search_models to obtain a model id, then use this tool. The singular 'one model' conveys that this is for single-model lookup, implicitly distinguishing from compare_models and cheapest_models, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use alternatives.

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