list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Search and list' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is adequate for a simple listing tool. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any potential side effects. For a lightweight read tool, this is minimally acceptable but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted prose or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for the agent to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter descriptions. The one-line description does not elaborate on return values, pagination behavior, search semantics, or when to use this tool over siblings. For a listing tool with three parameters and no structured documentation, the description is incomplete.

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. The description mentions 'search' generically but does not explain how the 'search' parameter works, what fields it matches, or the meaning of 'limit' and 'offset' beyond their name-based intuition. The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 '資産モデルを検索・一覧表示します' clearly states the tool searches and lists asset models, using specific verbs (search/list) and a specific resource (asset models). It distinguishes from siblings like list_assets (which likely lists assets, not models) and get_asset.

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?

The description implies usage for searching/listing asset models but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_assets or get_asset. The intent is understandable from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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