list_integration_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (total, model ids, display names, enabled state, custom-model markers) and the enterprise-gating restriction. It does not discuss pagination behavior (page_size/current_page parameters) but the schema covers pagination and output schema likely defines structure.

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 highly concise, consisting of five sentences each serving a purpose: stating the action, providing a use case, listing return fields, noting enterprise restriction, and specifying error behavior. No superfluous words or repetition.

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 a good annotation set, a full schema, and an output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, usage context, return fields, and error case. It could mention pagination behavior or ordering, but the output schema likely covers the structure. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already offers for the slug, page_size, or current_page parameters. Therefore, it adds minimal semantic value.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'models enabled on an integration', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_integrations (which lists integrations) and update_integration_models (which modifies models). It also provides a concrete use case: 'verify model availability before creating prompts or configs'.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('before creating prompts or configs') and mentions the enterprise limitation with a 403 error for non-Enterprise plans, indicating when it may not work. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like update_integration_models for modification, though this is implicit.

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