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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose matching semantics — plain substring matching over three fields, not fuzzy or semantic — which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about result ordering, what happens when nothing matches, or that results are capped/paginated, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

A single em-dash-joined sentence with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the routing hint is compact, so nothing needs trimming.

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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and why (to feed detail tools). It omits return shape and result ordering, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and both parameters (q, limit) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that q matches name/slug/provider, a marginal semantic gain over the schema's own 'Search text' example; it says nothing about limit beyond the schema's default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'substring search across model name, slug, and provider', which tells an agent exactly what fields are matched. The trailing clause positions it relative to 'the detail tools', implicitly separating it from get_model/list_models, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'the fast path to a model's provider/slug pair for the detail tools' signals that you call this to obtain the provider/slug needed by detail tools. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. list_models for browsing), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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