post-search-models

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 mentions that at least one field must be populated and that 'image' and 'images' are mutually exclusive, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what the search returns, whether it's paginated, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a search tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise with three sentences that directly address constraints and purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Search for models') and follows with necessary conditions. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating constraints into bullet points for clarity.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search behavior, result format, or how parameters interact (e.g., pagination with 'offset'/'limit' or 'page'/'hitsPerPage'). For a search tool with rich input options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 77%, which is high, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds minimal value by noting the requirement for at least one field and the mutual exclusivity of 'image' and 'images,' but it doesn't explain the semantics of key parameters like 'query' or 'filter' beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for the 23% coverage 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?

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Search for models,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-models' or 'get-public-models,' leaving ambiguity about when to use this search tool versus simple retrieval tools. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 minimal usage guidance by stating that at least one field must have a value and that 'image' and 'images' are mutually exclusive. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-models' or 'post-search-assets,' nor does it provide context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The guidance is limited to parameter constraints without broader usage context.

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