get_integration

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

The only behavioral trait disclosed is that credential-like fields are redacted. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the integration is not found.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it could be better structured by perhaps separating purpose and behavioral notes.

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, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage for 3 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, errors, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond their names. The redaction hint is about output, not parameters. The description fails to explain what 'environment' or 'integration_id' are, or the effect of 'include_credentials'.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one Nango integration', and mentions credential redaction. It distinguishes from list_integrations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description is too brief to convey any usage context or exclusions.

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