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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond those annotations by disclosing that the tool returns masked hints only, never tokens, and that it lists only configured integrations. This is valuable behavioral information that prevents incorrect assumptions about the output.

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 a single sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately provides the security-relevant output constraint ('masked hints only, never tokens'). 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, zero parameters, and annotations that fully cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete. The masking note clarifies a crucial aspect of the return value, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with coverage effectively at 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there are no parameter details to explain. The description's mention of output masking covers what the tool returns, not parameters, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured third-party source integrations'), making it immediately clear what this tool does. It also adds a crucial qualifier ('masked hints only, never tokens') that differentiates it from other integration operations and sets expectations about output. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like integrations_set and integrations_delete.

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 explicitly states the purpose, which signals when to use the tool: when an agent needs to view configured source integrations. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool provides the same listing function (integrations_set and integrations_delete are mutators, not alternatives). Clear context with no exclusions earns a 4.

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