integration

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavior, but it discloses nothing beyond the fact that it is a query. It does not state whether it is read-only, how pagination works, what the filters do, or what the response contains. The example variables show structure but do not describe behavior.

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 compact and includes a concrete example, but it is also under-specified. The raw list of variables duplicates the schema, and the example is not explained. Its brevity is not an asset because critical information is missing.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the query's purpose, return shape, or how to use the parameters effectively. The tool name 'integration' and sibling context do not compensate for the absence of essential usage information.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example JSON that illustrates the structure for 'after', 'filter', 'first', 'order' and nested pagination parameters, which is useful for invocation. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter beyond the raw variable names and GraphQL type placeholders.

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 gives the vague phrase 'Query Management · query integration' which essentially restates the tool name without specifying the resource or operation. It does not say what is being queried, what data is returned, or how this relates to the 'integrations' sibling tool. The example variables hint at an integration activity log query but the purpose is never stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'integrations' or 'graphql_query'. The description only lists variables and an example payload, with no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No usage context is provided.

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