recommend_model_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the ranking mechanism ('keyword overlap') and the default filtering behavior ('verified-only'), which are non-obvious traits. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, whether 'verified' means quality or availability, or the shape of the ranking output.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most decision-relevant behavioral facts. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves top and kind unexplained, and an agent must infer their meaning from names alone.

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% across 4 parameters. The description only loosely maps to two of them: 'described goal' corresponds to intent, and 'verified-only by default' corresponds to include_unverified. The top and kind parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest models for a described goal.' This distinguishes it from the enumerating sibling list_models_tool, since the action is goal-driven recommendation rather than listing. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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 implies usage (use when you have a goal description rather than a known model id), but never states when to prefer this over list_models_tool or the generate_* tools. The 'verified-only by default' clause hints at a default mode but gives no guidance on when to override it.

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