search-models

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the intended agent behavior (search first, then pick best match) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, describe the result format, or mention any potential side effects. The lack of a return value description is a notable gap.

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 a single, dense paragraph with an IMPORTANT warning up front. It is concise and every sentence contributes directly to the tool's usage. The heavy use of emphasis and multiple clauses makes it slightly less scannable, but it remains appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains when and how to use it but fails to describe what the results look like (e.g., fields, match quality, run count) or how many results are returned. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent when interpreting the response.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with a description and examples (100% coverage). The description adds a useful instruction: 'Use the exact text the user provided.' This supplements the schema by clarifying the expected input source and format.

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 is for searching models, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('models'). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing that this tool MUST be called first before any clarifying questions, positioning it as the initial lookup step.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call this tool whenever a user mentions any model name, including fuzzy matches. It also gives exclusions: do not ask for confirmation before searching, and only ask for clarification if zero results. This effectively preempts common agent missteps.

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