Recomendar modelo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what the ranking is based on, how results are (possibly ordered) returned, or any side effects. Since it mentions no output or side effects, the description leaves the agent without relevant context about what to expect when invoking it.

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 one short sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the main verb. It could have included more essential details (like the limit default), but it is concise and to the point.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter context. It does not explain what the ranked output looks like, the meaning of enums, or the default limit (3). The tool is moderately complex (4 params, multiple enums), so the description is incomplete for an agent to call it effectively.

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 explain parameter meanings. It maps 'budget' and 'requiresSelfHosted' to the mentioned 'orçamento' and 'requisito de hospedagem', and 'scenario' implicitly to 'cenário', but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, the meaning of the enum values, or the default behavior. This is insufficient for 0% coverage from a parameter semantics perspective.

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 clearly states the verb 'Orders' (sort/rank) and the resource 'models do catálogo' (models from the catalog), specifying the inputs (scenario, budget, self-hosting requirement). It distinguishes itself from siblings list_models and compare_models by naming the ranking behavior, which is different from simply listing or comparing.

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 a use case (rank models for a scenario with budget and self-hosting constraints) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like list_models or compare_models, nor any 'when not to use' conditions. The agent must infer usage from the verb and context.

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