Search Wiro models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral instruction to proceed to get_model_schema and run_model, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and provides a touch of workflow transparency.

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 fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and then delivers the key workflow instruction. Every word earns its place; it is succinct and well-structured.

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 read-only search tool with a rich output schema and high schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It includes the essential post-search workflow (get_model_schema, run_model). It doesn't spell out when not to use the tool versus siblings, but this is a minor gap for a search function. Overall, the description supplies sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 each parameter (sort, limit, start, search, slugowner, categories) is already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search and browse AI models on Wiro.' It also details a specific workflow ('call the returned get_model_schema next action before using run_model') which distinguishes it from siblings like recommend_model or explore. This gives an agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool does and when it fits into the overall model-running process.

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 clear guidance on how to use the tool: select a result and then call get_model_schema before run_model. This defines the expected usage flow. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., explore or recommend_model), but the workflow hint implicitly signals when this tool is appropriate (when a search is needed before running a model).

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