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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description needn't restate safety. It does add real value beyond them: results come back in leaderboard order, carry current metrics, and are a summary rather than a full report. It says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy) or empty-result behavior.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and inputs, the second routes to the sibling. Everything is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With full schema descriptions, an output schema, and complete annotations, an agent has nearly everything it needs from structured fields, and the description supplies the ordering and the escalation path. The remaining gap is disambiguating this tool from search_models when a model ID is passed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's list of searchable fields mirrors what the query parameter already documents, and it adds no meaning for locale or limit, so it does not exceed 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 gives a specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('relay services tracked by OkkMax') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, slug, domain, URL, model ID). It distinguishes itself from get_station, but leaves the overlap with the sibling search_models unresolved, since model ID is explicitly a valid query here too.

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 names one alternative ('Use get_station for a full report'), which is real routing guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over search_models or find_cheapest_relay, and the useful "omit query to list the leaderboard top" behavior lives only in the schema, not the description.

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