List models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the trailing 'Read operation.' sentence largely repeats that. The genuinely additive content is the hint that results are 'grouped for display in a model picker,' which describes the shape of the response and partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being listed. The only waste is 'Read operation.', which duplicates readOnlyHint from the annotations rather than earning its place.

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 zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields do not: that results are grouped for a picker UI. Remaining gaps (result ordering, size, pagination) are minor for this tool class and no output schema exists to lean on.

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 optional parameters (account, team_id) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about what these filters do to the returned model list.

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: 'List the LLMs and preset model chains available to the caller.' The scope ('available to the caller') is precise, but it never mentions the neighboring route_model tool, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

The description implies usage through 'grouped for display in a model picker' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With route_model in the sibling list, an agent would benefit from knowing this is a discovery/enumeration call rather than a dispatch call, and that distinction is absent.

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