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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-shape context (tool slugs of the form ext<id>_<name>, summaries, required params) that the annotations do not convey. It stops short of mentioning result caps or pagination behavior, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and return shape first, then the follow-up tool chain, then the anti-pattern. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out what comes back (slugs, summaries, required params) and how results feed the next two calls in the chain. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 query, limit and in_workspace are already documented. The description only restates the intent of the query parameter and adds nothing about limit or the workspace-scoped in_workspace override. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Search your connected integrations for tools by intent') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tools it hands off to (integrations_get_tool_schema, integrations_execute_tool). An agent knows this is discovery-only, not schema retrieval or execution.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow alternatives and when to use each: search here, then call integrations_get_tool_schema for full input schemas, then integrations_execute_tool to run. It also states the negative case ('Use this instead of guessing tool names for external actions'), leaving nothing to inference.

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