Integrations: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the return payload shape (description, auth type, per-operation key/name/description) in the absence of an output schema. It also draws an explicit boundary around what the tool does NOT report (project connection state), which prevents a common misread.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then downstream consumers, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, downstream key usage, and scope boundaries. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'provider' parameter is fully documented with concrete examples (claude, slack, hubspot). The description only says 'one provider' without adding format or lookup rules beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (details and operations for one provider) and enumerates exactly what is returned: provider description, auth type, and each operation's key/name/description. It is clearly distinguishable from integrations_list (all providers) and integrations_connections_list (connection status).

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?

Explains the downstream use of the returned operation keys ('what integrations_execute and workflows_integration_add take') and explicitly rules out connection status, routing the agent to integrations_connections_list for that. It never states a plain 'use this when you need X' trigger, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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