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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that API keys and webhook secrets are never returned and only a boolean indicator is provided, which is a critical trust and safety detail. It also states the exact returned fields, reducing ambiguity given the absence of an 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it states the core purpose first, then the return contents, then the security guarantee, and finally the relevant sibling alternatives. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, what fields are returned, what sensitive data is excluded, and how to add integrations. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately supplies the return-value context the agent needs.

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 single optional workspaceId parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full semantic burden for this parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('connected integrations for a workspace'), and the scope ('Apollo, Instantly, Clay'). It also distinguishes itself from related connect/disconnect tools by focusing on listing rather than mutating integration state.

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 makes the primary use case obvious: retrieving integration status for a workspace. It also explicitly directs the agent to campaignstack_connect_apollo or campaignstack_connect_instantly when the goal is to add an integration, providing useful routing guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives for disconnecting, but that is a minor gap.

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