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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it is a live catalog search, returns specific fields, and caps results at 20 matches. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

One sentence carries all essential information with no filler. The verb, resource, search criteria, return fields, and result limit are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is searched, what is returned, and the result limit. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with 100% coverage and a clear description of substring matching. The tool description mostly restates that the search is by name/provider/family, adding limited new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('Flow AI's live model catalog'), and the search dimensions (name/provider/family). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_free_models by emphasizing 'live' catalog and verified capabilities rather than just free models.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you need to find models by substring matching against id/provider/family. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the search-oriented framing makes the intended use obvious.

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