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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the underlying REST endpoint and query parameters, but it says nothing about return shape, page-size semantics, or result limits. With annotations lowering the bar, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and the pagination constraint, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only, three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only gap is that the return contents and pagination termination behavior aren't described, which is minor for a listing endpoint.

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 the schema already documents page, total, and keywords with their defaults and bounds. The description only restates the parameter names in parentheses, adding no format, syntax, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb pair (list/search) and resource (fal.ai models in the registry) and notes pagination, so the agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It doesn't name a sibling to distinguish from, but the surrounding tools (run, submit, cancel, get) are functionally unrelated, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. The agent can infer that this is a discovery call before falai_run_model, but nothing in the text says so, nor does it mention when another tool (e.g. falai_get_model_schema) would be the better choice.

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