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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the hasTools=true eligibility constraint and by enumerating what the response contains (name, description, inputSchema), which substitutes for the absent output schema. It omits failure behavior for ineligible integrations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by eligibility, then return fields — a sensible ordering. The second sentence ('This tool retrieves the list of available tools for the integration') largely restates the first and could be dropped, but the rest of the text is dense and useful.

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 one-parameter read-only discovery tool this is close to complete: it covers prerequisites, the sibling to use for lookup, and the shape of the returned data in lieu of an output schema. Only the error/empty case for integrations lacking tools is left undefined.

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 coverage is 100% for the single integrationId parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning: the ID is not arbitrary but must belong to an integration with hasTools=true, and you should obtain it via integrations_list. That constraint is not encoded in the schema.

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 all available tools from a specific integration') and implicitly separates itself from the two nearest siblings: integrations_list (which finds integrations) and integration_mcp_tool_call (which invokes one of the listed tools). The return-value bullets make the distinction between discovery and invocation unambiguous.

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?

Gives a real precondition — the integration must have hasTools=true — and routes the agent to integrations_list to find qualifying integrations, plus names integration_mcp_tool_call as the downstream consumer. It stops short of saying what to do when hasTools is false or how to handle an integration without tools, so it is not fully closed-loop.

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