get_integration

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, but the description adds meaningful context: 'Reads only; it does not re-run a sync or change any setting. Requires an API key.' It also clarifies a subtle behavior about response semantics: permitted vs. successfully done, and points to the last sync result.

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 structured with a clear opening sentence stating what is returned, followed by usage context, then read-only and caveat notes. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers intent, usage context, behavior, auth requirement, and limitations. The note about the difference between permissions and actual sync results adds important context for interpreting the response.

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?

There is only one parameter (integration_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description refers to 'one integration' implicitly tying the parameter to selecting a specific integration, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one integration, in full: its configuration, the scopes it was granted, and the result of its last sync.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list_integrations by noting 'Covers a single integration — list_integrations gives the overview.'

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use it to diagnose an integration that list_integrations shows as unhealthy, or to check which scopes were granted before relying on a capability.' It also names the alternative (list_integrations) and explains the singular vs. overview distinction.

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