datto_edr_integrations_list

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and openness (openWorldHint). The description adds genuinely non-obvious runtime behavior: the endpoint is resolved from this instance's /explorer/swagger.json, and a missing endpoint produces an error listing related models. That failure-mode disclosure is valuable context an agent would not otherwise have.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence is denser but earns its place by covering endpoint resolution and the fallback. Slightly more technical detail than an agent needs in the headline, but no wasted text.

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 full schema coverage, no required params, and no output schema, the main gaps are return shape and pagination semantics, which the schema already handles via skip/limit. The description fills the remaining critical gap — what happens when the endpoint doesn't exist — making it nearly complete for a read-only list call.

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% for all five parameters (skip, limit, order, where, fields), including operator lists and examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters; 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?

A clear verb+resource ("List configured integrations") with concrete examples (RMM, PSA, RocketCyber) that make the resource tangible. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools like extensions_list or agents_list by naming the domain, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name, and there is a helpful fallback hint: if the endpoint is missing, the returned error points at related models to query with datto_edr_raw_request. However, it never says when to prefer this over datto_edr_raw_request directly or how it differs from adjacent list tools.

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