Get AI Intelligence Ranking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: deduplication, one entry per model at best configuration, and identical ordering to other sources. However, it does not mention safety, response format, or rate limits, leaving some gaps beyond what the description alone should cover.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant detail about deduplication and ordering consistency. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the ranking is, how entries are selected (deduplicated, best configuration), and ordering reference. Minor gaps like default sorting direction or response format are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds some context about deduplication which relates to what limit controls (number of entries), but this is not explicitly tied to the parameter.

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 tool provides the current AI model intelligence ranking, with specifics about deduplication and source (Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index). It distinguishes itself from a generic model list by emphasizing ranking and deduplication, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_ai_models.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_model or list_ai_models. It implies usage by naming the purpose, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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