search_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavior is that results are paged and include a total count, which is somewhat useful but also available via the output schema.

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 short lines, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The 'Returns' block is slightly redundant given a declared output schema but is not wasteful.

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?

A 9-parameter search tool with two enums, a null-able tri-state filter and pagination needs guidance the description does not give — e.g. how limit/offset interact, what 'paid includes club-only models' implies, or when to set has_makes. Annotations and output schema cover part of the burden, but the description is thin for this complexity.

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?

The description says 'optional filters and pagination' without naming a single filter, ordering mode, or the limit cap. With schema coverage at 67% (ordering, limit and published_within_days carry no descriptions), the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 ('Search Printables models by text') plus the breadth of filtering, which separates it from get_model (single fetch) and list_author_models (author-scoped listing). No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops 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 statement of when to prefer this over list_author_models or list_model_files, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Only the implicit cue that a text query is required hints at usage.

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