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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent it is a safe read, and the description adds genuinely new context: the underlying Codat API endpoint (GET /integrations) and that results come back in a paged envelope. Auth, rate limits, and envelope field shape are not covered, but this is solid disclosure beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the key field, endpoint, and return shape. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 note that it 'returns the paged envelope' usefully sets pagination expectations, and pagination parameters are fully covered by the schema. Only minor gaps remain (no indication of filterable fields for the query param), so it is nearly complete for a simple list tool.

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 page, pageSize, query, and orderBy are all already documented with examples and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 (List) and resource (accounting/commerce/banking platforms, i.e. integrations) and even names the key field returned (platformKey). No sibling lists integrations, so the agent can distinguish it from codat_list_companies/connections/accounts without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: mentioning platformKey hints that this is the lookup needed before creating a connection, but the description never says when to call it or what to do instead. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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