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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return shape ('id, live status, last result and record URL'), which is useful and implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, authentication, or what happens when no matches are found.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, gives a concrete example, and then states the expected return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what to search, how to search, and what will be returned. Minor gaps remain around the limit parameter and empty-result behavior, but these are not critical for an agent to make a first correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'query' is a substring of the model id with an example, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, 'limit' is left entirely to the schema's min/max constraints and its name, with no description of ordering, truncation, or default behavior.

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 clear verb ('Find') and resource ('observed models') with a specific matching method: substring of the id, with an example ('mistral'). It also lists the return fields, which makes the tool's role easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling lookup_model, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus lookup_model or other siblings. The substring-search behavior implies one use case, but there are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent choose between search_models and lookup_model.

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