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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several meaningful behaviors: scenario-specific benchmark sources, the fact that benchmarks are distinct rather than a composite index, family_rollup collapsing variants, and include_community attaching a live community_signal. This goes well beyond what the schema shows, though it leaves 'cheap' undefined and does not mention output 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and scenario options, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, necessary clarification. No redundant phrases or 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered. But with six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves important gaps: what 'cheap' means, how max_input_price interacts with ranking, and what open_weights_only does. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for scenario (lists valid values and their benchmark mappings), family_rollup, and include_community. However, limit, max_input_price, and open_weights_only remain unexplained, leaving a partial gap.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rank models by scenario: coding | agent | intelligence | cheap.' It clarifies that coding and agent map to specific benchmarks (AA Terminal-Bench 4.0, AA Apex Agents) and explicitly disclaims a composite capability index, which helps distinguish it from siblings like get_model_benchmarks. It doesn't explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains tool mechanics—scenario options, benchmark mappings, family_rollup behavior—but gives no guidance on when to pick this over sibling tools or what conditions make it inappropriate. There is no 'use X instead' routing, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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