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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the scope 'attached to an agent revision,' which is useful but not rich behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or return shape.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with two clearly-specified UUID parameters, the description is largely complete. However, with no output schema and no mention of what fields or entities the returned integrations contain, there is a minor gap, and sibling confusion is not addressed.

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 both agent_id and build_id are documented in the schema with format and pattern constraints. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list integrations attached to an agent revision. It is clear and distinct from the generic listIntegrations sibling, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like listRevisionIntegrationConnections or listRevisionIntegrationQueues.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative integration-related list tools. An agent might confuse it with listIntegrations, listRevisionIntegrationConnections, or listRevisionIntegrationQueues without additional context about what distinguishes 'integrations' from these related resources.

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