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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description goes further: it defines each returned field's meaning, including the notable autoDisabled failure behavior, explains omission semantics for inapplicable integrations, and clarifies that connection is dashboard-only. This is genuinely additive behavioral context.

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-loads purpose and integration names, then layers field semantics, omission rules, API limitation, and targeting. Every sentence carries information, though the field-by-field enumeration partly overlaps the existing output schema, adding slight 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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps: what the fields mean, what gets omitted, and how the campaignId is resolved — leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for the single campaignId parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the targeting rule (campaignId if supplied, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID) without adding new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the integrations available to your GrowSurf program') and enumerates the concrete integration set (Stripe, PayPal, Wise, Mailchimp, Slack, Zapier, Webhooks). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like growsurf_integration_guide and growsurf_get_integration_connect_link.

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 strong context on what the tool can and cannot do, noting that account connection happens in the dashboard and is not available through the API, and that inapplicable integrations are omitted. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling (e.g. get_integration_connect_link) for connection flows, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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