Get APIKO model details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: the call is 'Free' (no billing impact) and the returned input_schema is authoritative for what other tools accept — a real behavioral constraint, though error behavior for a bad model id is unstated.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero filler. The payload enumeration comes first and the downstream routing instruction second, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — it does so field-by-field (request fields, endpoints, async/sync, price tiers), which is sufficient. Missing only failure-mode detail, e.g. what happens when the model id doesn't resolve.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already says 'Exact model id from search_models'. The description adds nothing about the model id format or how to recover from an invalid id, so it sits at the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 ('Read one model's ...') and enumerates the payload precisely (input_schema types/enums/defaults/required, endpoints, async/sync modes, price tiers), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The singular 'one model' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_models list tool, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Clear workflow context: 'Send only fields from input_schema to estimate_cost and the generate tools' tells the agent this is the prerequisite lookup step for the cost and generation siblings. It never states when *not* to call it or names search_models as the alternative for discovery, so the exclusion side is missing.

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