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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses what the tool returns — authentication, base URLs, request steps, parameters, expected responses, dependencies, and considerations — and implies a read-only 'get details' operation. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then explains required inputs, then describes the returned task brief. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains where inputs come from, the purpose of each input type, and exactly what the return value will cover. The relationship to the sibling `search` tool is also stated, making the tool usable without external documentation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds useful framing about pulling `id` and `type` from search results, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema's own property descriptions.

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 'Get integration details' and a clear resource 'public endpoints from search results'. It also positions the tool as the follow-up to the `search` sibling by requiring ids and types from search results, which differentiates it from `search`.

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 clearly implies the workflow: first use `search`, then call `integrate` with matching `resourceType` values. It does not explicitly state 'use search for discovery, integrate for details' or name exclusions, but the dependency on `search` results is evident and actionable.

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