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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds relevant behavioral context: restricted accounts see only allowed models, and users who cannot read the catalog get a fallback set of common readable models. It also discloses the return shape as JSON with count and models (model, name).

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose before adding scope and return details. Every sentence contributes useful information with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema description coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the core purpose, optional filter, restricted-scope behavior, fallback behavior, and return format.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reiterates the filter's purpose against technical name or label, but it does not add syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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: it lists the models available in the Odoo database, with optional filtering by technical name or label. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as odoo_fields_get or odoo_search_read.

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 implies usage by explaining that results can be optionally filtered by technical name or label, and it notes restricted-scope behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like odoo_fields_get or odoo_search_read, nor does it provide exclusions.

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