cork_get_available_integrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns metadata (available types) rather than actual connections, and mentions that credential fields are included. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format details. For a read-only list operation, this is acceptable but not exhaustive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and key detail (including required credential fields) are front-loaded, followed by the important differentiation from the sibling. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key differentiator. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but those are implicit in the schema. Given the low complexity and no output schema requirement, the description is largely complete, though a note about response format could push it to 5.

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?

All three parameters (page, page_size, vendor_type) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantic context about how these parameters affect the results. Since the schema already covers them, the description adds no extra value here, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

Description states a specific action (List integration types) and a clear resource (integration types for Cork). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling cork_get_connected_integrations by noting the distinction between what CAN be connected vs what IS connected. This is unambiguous and distinguishable without needing the schema.

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 directly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Metadata about what CAN be connected, not what IS connected') and names the alternative tool (cork_get_connected_integrations) for the complementary use case. This is explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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