find_models

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add operation-specific insight — and it does, by disclosing that 'cheapest' uses a blended price weighting of 3 input : 1 output tokens. That formula is not recoverable from annotations or the schema's bare 'Ranking.' default.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first states scope and filters, the second qualifies the default sort's semantics. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return-format detail is rightly omitted, and the description covers the search filters, the default sort, and the ranking definition. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, only lacking routing guidance relative to 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 already 88%, giving a baseline of 3, and the description adds meaning on top by explaining how the sort='cheapest' option is computed. It does not, however, expand on any of the other seven parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Search') and resource ('OpenRouter's live catalog') plus the four filter dimensions (name, capabilities, price ceilings, context size), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't name any sibling (compare_providers, estimate_cost, price_changes) to draw a boundary, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives among the siblings (estimate_cost, price_history, compare_providers). Usage is only inferable from the stated filters, so the agent must guess whether to reach for this versus a cost-comparison tool.

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