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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context: OAuth authorization flows are browser-based and cannot be performed via this API, directing users to the dashboard. It also clarifies the scope of listed items (owned/granted custom connections). This goes beyond annotations.

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 concise, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the OAuth caveat in the second. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical details: it doesn't explain the 'type' parameter, pagination (limit/offset), or what the response contains. While the OAuth limitation is noted, the overall description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call this tool with correct parameters.

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 only 25% (only team_id has a description). The description does not mention any of the four parameters, nor does it explain what 'type' means or how limit/offset work. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents without essential parameter semantics.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'integration catalog', specifying it includes built-in integration types and custom connection types owned or granted. This is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listConnections or listRevisionIntegrations, which could overlap in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listConnections or listPluginCatalog. The only usage note is about OAuth flows requiring the dashboard, which is behavioral rather than selection-oriented. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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