find_models

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists a catalog, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. It also doesn't describe the exact output structure beyond naming fields, but that is mentioned in the purpose. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('List a brand's model catalog') and then provides a practical tip on pairing the result with search_listings. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what the tool returns (model name, slug, id) and how to leverage those values in another tool. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case guidance, but given the low complexity and the presence of a rich schema for the parameter, it is nearly complete. The only missing piece is a more explicit output format specification.

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 input schema already provides a comprehensive description of the 'brand' parameter, covering name, ID, and slug formats (100% coverage). The tool description does not add new meaning about the parameter itself; it only instructs how to use the output values (model id and brand id) with search_listings. Since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'List a brand's model catalog (model name, slug and numeric model id)'. It names a specific verb ('list') and resource ('model catalog'), specifies the returned fields, and distinguishes itself by describing the catalog scope. This is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to know what it does.

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 practical usage context by instructing how to connect the output to other tools: 'Pair the model id with search_listings' models param and the brand id with manufacturerIds'. It implies when to use it (when you need a brand's model IDs) without explicitly listing exclusions or alternatives. It gives clear context, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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