Contract Testing: Get Integrations by Team

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is assured. The description adds the team-filtering scope and 'all' qualifier, but does not disclose response shape, sorting, or pagination semantics beyond the schema defaults; this adds some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 opening sentence is crisp and front-loaded, but the Toolset label and parameter bullet list largely repeat information already available in the schema and title. The extra format/headers are not redundant enough to hurt readability, but also do not earn their place under the value-beyond-structured-fields standard.

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, paginated list operation, the description plus annotations provide enough for an agent to call it correctly: purpose, required teamId, and pagination defaults. It is not a 5 because it never contrasts with the similar list_integrations sibling and says nothing about the returned integration structure.

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 the description's parameter list exactly mirrors the schema, including UUID, defaults, and requiredness. It adds no semantic meaning beyond the structured input schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Retrieve'), a resource ('consumer-provider integrations'), and a scope ('belonging to a specific team'), making it immediately clear what this tool does. The team-scoped wording also distinguishes it from siblings such as contract-testing_list_integrations, even though it does not name them.

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 for team-scoped integration retrieval, and the pagination parameters hint at list-style use, but it never says when to prefer this tool over contract-testing_list_integrations or other integration/network tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are provided.

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