aircall_get_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Get information'. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the availability limitation (OAuth or Aircall-built integrations), which is a behavioral constraint not captured in structured metadata. No contradiction detected.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or vague filler.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficient: it states what it does and the auth prerequisite. It does not enumerate the exact fields returned, but since there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, this omission is minor and does not impair selection or invocation.

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 schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the integration is determined by the 'current API credentials', which explains how the tool implicitly resolves its input and enhances understanding beyond the empty schema.

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 retrieves information about the integration tied to the current API credentials. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), specifies the resource ('integration'), and notes the credential dependency, making it distinct from other integration-related tools like aircall_get_config or aircall_get_company.

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 a clear contextual constraint: it is only available for OAuth or Aircall-built integrations, which helps an agent decide whether the tool is usable in their current auth context. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond that availability restriction.

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