find_models

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It says nothing about whether this is read-only, whether the list is scoped or cached, or how results are returned. Only the basic discovery behavior is conveyed.

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 short sentences, no waste, purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and usage in the second.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more weight. For a discovery tool, it should describe the return shape (e.g., model names, available tools) and any required auth. What's there is minimal but adequate for the simple single-optional-param design.

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%, so the schema fully documents the optional 'query' parameter (case-insensitive name filter). Description adds nothing 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?

States a clear verb (discover) and resource (Django models registered with MCP). Distinguishes from siblings, which are all model-specific CRUD operations (list_author, get_article, etc.) rather than a discovery/meta tool. Not a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Explicit use case given: 'Use this to find which models have tools available.' That is a clear trigger for when to call it. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

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