Get Integration Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., response format, limitations). It is consistent but adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the essential purpose and usage condition without any filler. Perfectly concise for a simple informational tool.

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 guide tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It identifies when to use, what it shows, and the main variants. The lack of an output schema or detailed parameter explanation is minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's enums.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'mode' or 'language' parameters at all. Although the enums are self-explanatory (sdk_node/direct_api, various languages), the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning solely from the 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 clearly states the tool shows a step-by-step integration guide, with specific options (SDK Node or direct API). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_payment_link or create_transaction, which are operational tools rather than documentation/help tools.

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?

Explicitly states to use only when the user asks for help integrating, providing a clear usage condition. Although it doesn't name alternatives, the 'use only when' phrase effectively excludes other contexts, making the guideline unambiguous.

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