list_integrations

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by adding 'Requires an API key,' warning that 'an integration listed as connected can still be failing to sync,' and clarifying that 'an empty list means nothing is connected yet, which is not an error.' These are useful behavioral details not captured by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second gives usage context and alternatives, and the remaining sentences add important caveats about side effects, authentication, sync reliability, and empty results. It is dense but not bloated.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and straightforward pagination params, the description covers what is returned, when to use it, follow-up tools, auth requirements, edge cases, and non-error conditions. Nothing important is missing.

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% and both parameters (page, limit) are already described with defaults. The description does not add pagination semantics or defaults, so a 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: 'List every third-party integration connected to the account, with its sync status and when it last ran.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_integration and toggle_integration by defining both scope and output fields.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Start here when a question involves external data,' and names exact alternatives: 'follow up with get_integration; to turn one on or off, use toggle_integration.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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