List Integrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a useful behavioral scoping ('that can be connected') to clarify what is returned, but doesn't explicitly state side effects or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already indicates. This is adequate for a simple list operation.

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?

Single sentence, clearly worded, with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource.

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 two-parameter list tool with a full output schema, this one-sentence description is sufficient. It captures the key distinction from list-connections and doesn't leave significant gaps.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both `limit` and `search`, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'available integrations/apps that can be connected', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list-connections (which likely handles existing connections). It clearly states what the tool does.

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?

The description implies usage context by noting that these are integrations 'that can be connected', which differentiates this from list-connections. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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