search_all_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that — queries fan out in parallel, results are interleaved, and MakerWorld returns only a search URL rather than model records. It also discloses result hints (is_free, has_printable_files, has_sliceable_files), which an agent could not otherwise anticipate. Rate limits, auth, and partial-failure behavior when one marketplace is unreachable are not covered.

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 purpose statement is well front-loaded and the MakerWorld caveat is valuable, but the embedded Args block duplicates field descriptions already present at 100% schema coverage, padding the definition with redundant text. The closing sentence pointing to model_details/model_files/download_model earns its place; the Args enumeration mostly does not.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains what each result contains and which field (source) identifies the marketplace, plus the follow-up tools for inspection and download. It leaves pagination termination and behavior on a failed source unaddressed, which is a gap for an open-world fan-out tool but a minor one.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The Args block largely restates those same descriptions (query examples, defaults for page/per_page, sort values, sources list) with no added syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (search across all connected 3D marketplaces), enumerates the four sources, and calls out parallel retrieval with interleaved results. That scope implicitly separates it from single-source siblings like search_models or search_cached_models, but it never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation must be inferred.

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 gives concrete usage context ('Omit to search all connected sources' for the sources param) and an explicit follow-up chain: use model_details with the returned id, model_files for downloads, download_model to save. It does not state when to prefer a single-marketplace search instead or when not to use this tool.

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