Find a model slug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: it is "cheap," results are cached and `refresh` bypasses the cache, a slug is always returned, and media/speech boards are included with their board label. It never mentions auth requirements, rate limits, or error/empty-result behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and routing instruction in the first sentence, and the Args block is compact. The media/speech sentence is slightly defensive prose, but it justifies a real edge case rather than being 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?

For a five-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all parameters, the cache model, and the guarantee of a slug return (plus board labels for media models). It stops short of describing the shape of returned rows or how many results `top` can safely request.

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, and the Args block documents all five parameters with meaning beyond their names: query is a fuzzy name or partial slug (with an example), creator is a substring filter, open_weights keeps only one weight class, top is a row count with default, refresh bypasses cache. It omits acceptable query syntax limits and slug format conventions, keeping it from a 5.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: a name-to-slug resolver, with the explicit routing claim that it should be called first when a name is uncertain. It is clearly distinguishable from detail-oriented siblings like aa_model or aa_compare without opening either schema.

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?

"Call this first whenever a name is uncertain" gives a concrete trigger condition and an ordering rule relative to the next tool call. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when a name is already known to be an exact slug), so it falls just short of the top band.

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