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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that secret values are never returned, only IDs and metadata (type, key name, verified, title). It also explains how these IDs are used in project creation. No contradiction with the read-only annotation; instead, it reinforces the safe, non-destructive nature of the tool.

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 succinct and well-structured, with the purpose stated first and subsequent paragraphs adding usage guidance and fallback instructions. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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, parameterless read-only tool, the description is thorough: it explains what the tool does, when to call it, what to expect in the response (IDs and metadata), and how to handle cases where no suitable integration is saved. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, and the description covers all necessary workflow context.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the description appropriately does not invent any. The schema is empty, so parameter semantics are inherently covered (baseline 4). The description enriches understanding by explaining the relevance of integration IDs, even without parameter syntax details.

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 tool's function as listing the user's saved credentials (Global Integrations). It details how these credentials are used (referenced by ID) and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on integration credentials. The purpose is immediately evident and 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'ALWAYS call this before creating any bot project or asking the user for a token/API key.' It also outlines the fallback procedure when nothing suitable is saved, directing the user to add integrations via settings rather than pasting tokens in chat. This clearly communicates when to use the tool and what alternatives to avoid.

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