Run one model synchronously

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: this is a paid request, a synchronous timeout may leave an unknown paid outcome, and there is no retry or polling. That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though return/response behavior is only touched on.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the paid/validation precondition. Every sentence carries signal (cost, validation, no defaults, timeout risk), though the telegraphic style is dense enough to require careful parsing.

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 paid, destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, validation and timeout risk well. It does not clarify what a successful synchronous call returns (only what queue submissions return), leaving a real gap for a tool whose result the agent must act on.

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 100%, so the schema already documents model_id, input, confirm, account, store_io and lifecycle. The description reinforces 'Exact model_id/input required; do not invent fields or choose a default', which adds a little meaning but largely restates schema guidance — baseline 3 for full coverage 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 states a specific verb+resource: it executes one paid model request synchronously ('Run one model synchronously'), and the contrast with queue submissions helps separate it from submit_job. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the closely related generate_image / generate_video siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Queue submissions return receipt only' hints that this is the synchronous alternative, and 'No retry or polling' tells the agent not to wrap it in a polling loop. But no alternative (submit_job, submit_generation_batch) is named, and no explicit when-to-use / when-not condition is given.

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