List ad-network integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds meaningful context by noting results are 'redacted' and include 'readiness,' but does not describe pagination, return shape, or whether any filters are supported.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero waste. The key qualifiers ('redacted' and 'readiness') are front-loaded and immediately informative.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a concise but sufficient picture of what the tool returns: redacted ad-network connections and their readiness. It could go slightly further by clarifying whether any filters or pagination exist, but for a simple list tool this is nearly complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately stays high-level. A baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool with an 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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (ad-network connections), and adds two useful qualifiers: results are redacted and include readiness state. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling integration tools like get_app or create_integration.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is the read-only listing counterpart to create/update/delete_integration. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool mentions are provided.

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