---
title: "dbt models with no description | Metacenta"
description: "A dbt model with no description gets re-derived by everyone who reads it, and the copies drift. What to write, and when a model can go without."
url: "https://metacenta.com/rules/model-undocumented"
updated: "2026-10-14"
tokens: 701
---

Documentation · rule model-undocumented

# dbt models with no description

A Metacenta review checks this under the rule **Models carry a description**. Everything below applies whether or not you ever commission one.

## What this rule checks

This rule flags every dbt model whose `description` is empty in its schema YAML. A description written in a `{% docs %}` block and referenced with `{{ doc() }}` counts.

## Why it matters

Without a description, a reader can only learn what a model means by reading its SQL. Most will not, so each team works out its own meaning, and the definitions drift apart. We rate the finding higher on a final model in a `marts` folder, because more people read those.

## How to fix it

**Document the models.** Add a `description:` to the model's schema YAML. Say what one row is, what the model is for, and anything a reader would get wrong without being told.

Before:

```yaml
models:
  - name: fct_orders
```

After:

```yaml
models:
  - name: fct_orders
    description: >
      One row per completed order. Excludes test orders and
      orders refunded in full within 24 hours.
```

## When it is fine to leave

An intermediate model that only one other model reads, whose name already says what it does, can go without. Describe the models people query, and the ones others build on.

## What we need to check it

`manifest.json` alone, which `dbt parse` writes.

## Published rules it corresponds to

**[dbt_project_evaluator](https://dbt-labs.github.io/dbt-project-evaluator/)**, rule `fct_undocumented_models`. Ours checks the same condition and threshold.

**[dbt_project_evaluator](https://dbt-labs.github.io/dbt-project-evaluator/)**, rule `fct_undocumented_public_models`. Ours checks everything it flags, and more. dbt raises this only for models declaring `access: public`; this check raises it for every undocumented model, so it covers that rule and more. Deliberately NOT a second check — a public model would then appear twice on the worklist for one missing description.

This means our check corresponds to their rule. It does not mean the publisher reviewed or endorses it.

[Ask about a review](https://metacenta.com/enquire?src=rule-model-undocumented&via=md)

## Related pages

- [dbt columns with no description](https://metacenta.com/rules/model-columns-undocumented)
- [dbt models that declare no columns](https://metacenta.com/rules/model-no-column-schema)
- [dbt sources with no description](https://metacenta.com/rules/source-undocumented)
- [dbt source groups with no description](https://metacenta.com/rules/source-parent-undocumented)
- [This rule in a sample review](https://metacenta.com/sample#jaffle-shop)
- [All published rules](https://metacenta.com/rules)
- [How a review is assessed](https://metacenta.com/standard)