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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not reveal how the search behaves, such as whether filters are combined with AND/OR, whether the result is sorted, or whether the operation is read-only. The word 'search' implies a read operation, but no further behavior is disclosed.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose effectively, but it offers no additional structure or formatting, which is fine for conciseness yet leaves other information gaps.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain what the return value looks like, how the filter parameters interact, or how this tool relates to models_list, leaving an agent uncertain about the invocation context.

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?

The schema already documents 4 of 5 parameters, giving approximately 80% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to capability, price, and context aligns with existing parameter descriptions (capability, sort, minContext, maxInputPer1MRub) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema 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 uses a clear verb ('Поиск' – search), a specific resource ('моделей' – models), and names the key search dimensions (capability, price, context). It implies a filtered search rather than a plain list or pricing lookup, which differentiates it from siblings like models_list and models_get_pricing, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 the tool is for finding models by capability, price, or context, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Without mentioning alternatives such as models_list or models_get_pricing, an agent must infer when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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