Get Generation Model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: it is a read operation and returns the option JSON Schema plus credit cost, which is valuable since no output schema exists. It stops short of covering error behavior for an unknown ID.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first clause and return content immediately after. The injected HTML anchor for the base URL is slightly awkward but does not obscure the meaning, and no sentence is wasteful.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the remaining gaps: it says what comes back (option JSON Schema and credit cost) in the absence of an output schema. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%: `id` and `account` are both documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one generation model") and clarifies what the response contains: the model's option JSON Schema and its credit cost. It is clearly distinct in kind from list_models, though the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts singular fetch from listing.

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 only implied: fetching a single model by ID to learn its accepted options and cost before generating an asset. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition (e.g. needing a valid model ID), and no named alternative to list_models for discovery.

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