list_integration_models

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing the Enterprise plan gating and the exact failure mode (403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans) — that is the kind of pre-call context an agent needs. The returned-field list is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but the gating information alone justifies a high score.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then when to use it, then return shape, then the gating caveat. No filler and no repetition of the name or schema.

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?

With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the Enterprise-only access constraint and 403 behavior. Pagination across page_size/current_page is left to the schema, which is acceptable but the only remaining gap.

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 slug, page_size, and current_page are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., no note on slug format or pagination defaults), so this sits at the baseline of 3.

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: lists models enabled on an integration. This distinguishes it implicitly from the write-path siblings update_integration_models and delete_integration_model, but it never names them, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'list' vs 'update/delete'. Clear purpose, though not explicitly contrasted with the nearest siblings.

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?

'Use this to verify model availability before creating prompts or configs' gives a concrete trigger condition tied to real downstream tasks. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_integration, update_integration_models) or stating when-not to use it, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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