List Dare models

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds the important behavior that the tool 'makes no network request and spends no credits.' This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent confidence about side-effect-free invocation.

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?

Three sentences: first states what the tool lists, second says when to call it, third clarifies side effects. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the output contents, provides usage context, and discloses cost/network behavior; no output schema exists, but the description covers what an agent needs to know.

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%, and both parameters already have clear enum constraints and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents kind and response_format.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('video and image models available on Dare'), plus the key attributes returned: durations, aspect ratios, quality tiers, and reference limits. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dare_estimate_cost or dare_generate_video.

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?

It explicitly says to call this before generating so parameters are valid for the chosen model, and points to dare_estimate_cost for prices. This gives an agent concrete when-to-use guidance and names the relevant alternative tool.

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