Venice Model Compatibility Mapping

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new context: the mapping is 'live', no authentication is required, and the API defaults to text when type is omitted. These are behavioral facts not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the default and auth note. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete. The only gap is routing guidance relative to the other model-listing tools, but 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%, and the schema already documents the 'type' parameter with its full enum-like catalog list and default. The description restates the default-to-text behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the live compatible model-name to Venice model-id mapping for a model type.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like venice_list_models or venice_model_details, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It notes the default behavior when 'type' is omitted, which implies usage context, but never says when to reach for this tool versus the model-related siblings (venice_list_models, venice_model_details, venice_model_traits). Usage is only implied.

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