get_r_integration_integration_credentials_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions that it retrieves a credential and does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or response format. The description is purely mechanical (calls GET) without behavioral context.

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 two sentences, first giving the action, second giving parameter placement. There is no fluffchers, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 no annotations, no required params, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify what the response will contain, what specific values to put in path_params, or any prerequisites. For a CRUD GET tool, it is minimal but not entirely inadequate.

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 0%, and the schema is generic with anyOf objects for body/query/headers/path_params. The description explains the role of each: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers. However, it doesn't specify what the path_params should contain (the actual ID key) or what filters are valid. It adds some guidance but insufficient details.

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 states that it retrieves an integration credential, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool get_r_integration_integration_credentials (which likely lists many) or from the broader family of get_r_*_id tools. The name already implies this, so the description adds minimal differentiation.

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 implies usage by stating the REST call and how to supply parameters (path_params, query, headers). It does not explicitly state when to use this over the list version or any alternatives. There is no when-not guidance, but the context is clear for a simple GET by ID.

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