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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavior: alias spellings are folded into an aliases field rather than returned as separate models, and their relay counts are not merged — a caveat that would otherwise cause an agent to misread the counts. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result payload, then the downstream-tool routing, then the alias caveat in a logical order. The opening phrase 'with OkkMax model pages' is slightly awkward and the last sentence is dense, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return formatting or side effects. It supplies the missing interpretive context — canonical slug identity and unmerged alias counts — that an agent could not infer from structured fields alone. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being complete.

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%, so limit, query and locale are already fully documented, including the enum values and defaults. The description contributes no additional parameter-level syntax or format guidance; its only adjacent detail, alias handling, is a result-modeling note rather than query semantics. 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search the AI models that relays resell') and names concrete examples (Claude, GPT/Codex, Gemini), which cleanly separates it from the sibling station-search tools. It also states what the result contains — canonical slug, relay count, vendor price — so an agent knows the shape of the answer before opening the schema.

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 establishes the workflow position by saying the returned canonical slug is what you pass to get_model_board or find_cheapest_relay, which implies this is the entry point before those calls. It stops short of explicitly saying when to use this over search_stations, but the model-vs-station distinction is clear from the resource named.

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