Search models (live)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real behavior: live network search of GGUF repos, per-quant size returns, best-quant-for-this-hardware annotation, and pullable references in Ollama form. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or failure behavior for the remote source.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then source semantics, then the negative constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and the exclusion is placed last so it doesn't bury the main action.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the return shape (quant sizes, best-fit quant, pullable reference), which is more than required. With annotations and full schema coverage present, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that results carry fit annotations, which gives meaning to the otherwise thin fitsOnly and contextLength parameters, and by characterizing each source value. It doesn't clarify limit defaults or query matching semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Find models to download") plus the value-add of hardware-fit annotation, and defines each source mode concretely. It does not name competing siblings such as search_available or suggest_model, so an agent still has to infer which search tool to pick.

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?

Explains the 'huggingface' vs 'catalog' choice with the consequence of each, and explicitly rules out a third source ("The Ollama library has no public search API, so it is not a source"), which prevents a wasted call. No guidance on when to prefer this over suggest_model or search_available.

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