List Carpe Diem models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the catalogue is live, it is free, results are paged, and route='router' reads a different endpoint (/router/models) that augments text models with best-price markets. It still omits pagination mechanics and what a result row contains.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then the routing map — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler sentences. The routing list is long and partly duplicates the route parameter's schema description, so it is dense rather than perfectly lean, but every clause carries actionable content.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition should give some sense of what a returned model record looks like; it only hints via 'verbose' returning full rows versus summaries. Safety, scope, cost and downstream routing are all well covered, so this is a solid but not complete picture.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the semantic distinction that route='router' attaches best-price markets per text model, which clarifies a parameter whose meaning is otherwise opaque from the enum alone. It also frames capability and privacy as filters over catalogue rows rather than raw flags.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Page through the live Carpe Diem model catalogue') and immediately scopes it as 'Venice models plus Carpe metadata', which separates it from siblings like carpe_model_details and carpe_pricing. The filtering axes (type, capability, privacy, search) further pin down exactly what this tool does.

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?

Provides an unusually explicit routing table mapping each carpe_diem_type value to the correct downstream action tool (text → carpe_chat, tts → carpe_tts, etc.), so an agent knows what to do after listing. It does not, however, say when to prefer this list over carpe_model_details, carpe_markets or carpe_pricing, which remain plausible alternatives for model information.

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