list_models

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so much of the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that it returns only configured models plus price estimates and supported options — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (configured models, estimated prices, supported options) carries information about the response.

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 no input parameters, an output schema in place, and annotations covering the read-only profile, the definition supplies nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is the missing cue about where this call fits relative to cost_report and the generation tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List configured models") and states the payload (estimated prices and supported options). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all generate or edit media or produce a cost report, but it does not name those siblings explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: mentioning estimated prices and supported options hints that this is a discovery call to make before generate_image, start_video, or cost_report, but the description never says when to call it or when not to. No prerequisites or ordering guidance is given.

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