Model search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: optional API key grants higher rate limits, and the expand parameter controls extra fields like full OpenAPI schema and enterprise status. It does not detail pagination behavior or complete response shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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 well-structured with bold section headers, front-loads the purpose, and progresses logically through modes, expansion, examples, authentication, and use cases. It is appropriately sized for a multi-mode tool, but the 'Common Use Cases' list largely echoes the already-stated modes, adding minor redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the main behaviors an agent needs: mode selection, expansion fields, authentication impact, and endpoint ID examples. It does not specify the exact response structure for List or Search modes beyond 'minimal metadata', leaving some return-value ambiguity, but it is otherwise complete for a search/discovery tool.

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 individual parameter meanings are already well documented. The description adds value by grouping parameters into the three usage modes, clarifying that endpoint_id can be combined with search params to narrow results, and explaining expand behavior with concrete field names. This adds combinatorial semantics beyond the schema, though it repeats some schema-level detail.

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 a specific resource ('model endpoints') and specifies three distinct usage modes (List, Find, Search) with clear parameter conditions. An agent can immediately tell this is a discovery/search endpoint for models, distinct from utility tools like get_pricing or get_usage.

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?

It explicitly maps parameter combinations to three usage modes and provides common use cases, which gives clear operational context. However, it does not name a sibling alternative such as get_model_info when the agent needs a single model's details, and no explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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