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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it returns metadata only, and it warns that a null GitHub handle/profileUrl means unknown and should not be derived from the numeric id. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, though it does not cover potential rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence carries meaningful detail (e.g., the GitHub caveat, the 'metadata only' note), but it is slightly dense. Still, there is no fluff, so it earns a 4.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, which the description does not need to explain. The description covers the key aspects: what is inspected, the special GitHub handling, and the recommended usage. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly, though it does not describe the exact output shape (handled by the schema).

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 input schema already fully describes the single optional parameter ('Optional integration source to inspect; omit for all sources.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: inspecting integration sources and their metadata (labels, connection state, sync cadence, etc.). It distinguishes from sync_connected_source by emphasizing it returns metadata only, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('use this before claiming a source is connected or current'), which is clear context for the agent. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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