Suggest For Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context by defining what the three outputs mean (best value = cheapest statistically indistinguishable from top), but discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness of the underlying ratings.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers the core action, but the trailing clause ('the best value (the cheapest whose rating the votes cannot tell apart from the top), the top rated and the cheapest rated') is dense and awkwardly nested, requiring re-reading to parse the three tiers.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values or parameter formats. It adequately conveys the tool's purpose and the reasoning behind its recommendations, leaving only usage routing unaddressed.

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 100%, so pay, answer, and prompt are already documented with enums, defaults, and format hints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 specific verb (suggests a model and effort level) applied to a specific input (a prompt), and clarifies it guesses the kind of work first. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_models and compare_models implicitly by being a recommendation rather than a lookup, though it never names them.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite a rich sibling set (find_models, compare_models, estimate_cost). The agent must infer that this is the right tool when it wants a recommendation rather than a listing or cost estimate.

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