list_author_models

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: results are paginated and each response carries a next-page cursor. It does not mention ordering effects, result limits, or what an empty page means, so 3 is appropriate rather than higher.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return shape second. The "Returns" block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little and remains well ordered.

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 read-only, idempotent paged-list tool with a full output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns at a level the output schema can expand on. The missing piece is the relationship to search_models and any guidance on ordering semantics, which keeps it below 5.

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 50%: author formats and cursor provenance are documented in the schema, while limit and ordering have no description at all. The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half — notably the six enum ordering modes and the 1-100 limit bounds are left unexplained.

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 ("List models published by an author") and adds the paging scope, which clearly separates it from get_model or list_model_files. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the closest sibling, search_models, so an agent must infer that this is the browse-by-author path rather than the query path.

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?

"Page by page" hints at the pagination workflow, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over search_models or get_author, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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