get_integration_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds auth requirements (PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY), cost (0 credit), and the exact return payload shape. These are behavioral facts the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the when/when-not, then prerequisite and side-effect facts, then return fields. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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 enumerating the returned JSON fields. Combined with auth, cost, and prerequisite disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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% and already documents both app_id (app_xxxx format, from list_apps) and the framework options. The description restates the same framework list and app_id prerequisite without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (generate) and resource (SDK installation code / service worker setup instructions) scoped to an app_id and framework. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from send_push_notification, so an agent can route between them without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a developer asks how to install PushNotif on HTML, Laravel, Next.js/React, WordPress, or Flutter/mobile'), an explicit exclusion ('do not use it to send notifications – use send_push_notification instead'), and a prerequisite ('call list_apps first to get app_id').

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