Top models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the ranking criteria and filter compatibility, but does not disclose result ordering direction, tie-breaking, pagination, or return-value shape. The schema documents limit and data-exclusion, but the description itself adds only the ranking concept and cross-reference to find_models.

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?

One tightly constructed sentence states the core operation, enumerates criteria, and references filter compatibility. Every phrase earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the ranking concept and filter compatibility but omits details about the returned model fields, sort direction/deduplication behavior, and any interaction with limit/ranking, leaving the agent to infer these from the schema and sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the ranking criteria, which the sortBy enum already documents in more detail. The 'same filters as find_models' reference is useful but not a substitute for the schema's complete parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('Rank') with a clear resource ('models') and enumerates the ranking criteria, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from find_models by stating it ranks by a single criterion rather than merely listing or filtering.

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?

It clearly signals the use case: obtain top models ranked by a selected criterion. The phrase 'Supports the same filters as find_models' gives context about filter behavior and indirectly points to find_models as the filter/search sibling, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternative for mere listing.

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