search_models

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as how the search is performed, pagination behavior, or any limitations (e.g., maximum results). With annotations covering safety, the description does not extend transparency beyond what is already inferred.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks substance. While brevity is valued, it omits critical details such as what the search filters are or how results are returned. The single sentence does not fully earn its place as it fails to inform adequate use.

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 4 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify the search behavior (e.g., whether 'query' is a free-text search or exact match), the effect of 'provider' and 'capabilities' filters, or the structure of results. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on the current description.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention 'query', 'provider', 'capabilities', or 'limit' at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. The nested 'capabilities' object further complicates usage without documentation.

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 'Search available OpenRouter models' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: searching models on OpenRouter. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_model_info' or 'validate_model', which also deal with models. A more specific description (e.g., listing all searchable criteria) would improve 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_model_info' for retrieving a specific model's details. The description offers no context about prerequisites, expected input patterns, or scenarios where search is preferred.

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