List gateway models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: an unpriceable model yields a null price rather than zero, which prevents an agent from misreading the data. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering of the results.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the resource and its fields up front, the second anticipates a likely misreading of the output. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and the description already sketches the payload. With both parameters fully described in the schema and annotations covering behavior, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly; only filtering workflow guidance is absent.

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 both the tier enum and provider filter are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description mentions tier and provider only as returned fields, not as filter semantics, so it adds nothing beyond the schema for parameter meaning.

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 names the resource ('the models the Lobstack Gateway serves') and enumerates the returned fields (capability tier, provider, context window, USD price), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It is unambiguous, though it never explicitly names a verb like 'list' and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as lobstack_route_preview.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the siblings (lobstack_route_preview, lobstack_chat, lobstack_spend), nor any prerequisite or sequencing advice. The only contextual hint is embedded in the tier parameter schema ('Token Intelligence walks these from cheapest upward'), which is not usage guidance for the tool itself.

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