search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose three real behavioral traits: case-insensitive substring matching, result ordering ('most descended first'), and a scope limitation ('covers the 88k models that have at least one declared child'), which tells the agent childless models are excluded. It does not cover pagination or the limit cap, but the disclosures it does make are meaningful.

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, front-loaded with the core search semantics followed by the scope caveat. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the search semantics are adequately covered. However, for a bare read-search with no annotations, the absence of any routing guidance against the five related sibling tools leaves a real gap.

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. It explains what 'query' matches against (ids, case-insensitive substring) but says nothing about 'limit' — the schema shows only a bare integer with default 15, and the description never states that it caps the number of returned models.

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 concrete verb ('Find') and a precisely scoped resource ('models with descendants whose id contains the query'), including the match and ordering semantics. It is clear in isolation, but never distinguishes itself from siblings like family, lineage, or children, which is the one thing that would separate it from the closest alternatives.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any of the sibling tools (family, lineage, children, leaderboard, stats). An agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right tool versus lineage or children.

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