Integrations: list

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: providers disabled for the project are omitted, and each result carries key, category, auth type (api_key vs oauth2) and operation count. This pre-empts confusion about missing providers and tells the agent what it can branch on. It stops short of full transparency only because it doesn't characterize ordering, completeness guarantees, or response envelope.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the entry-point instruction, then the field list and exclusions, then the next-step routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description takes on the job of explaining the return shape, which it does (key, category, auth type, operation count) along with the filtering caveat about disabled providers. Nothing required to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to carry parameter meaning, and appropriately spends its words on the returned provider fields instead.

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 and resource ('List available integration providers') and immediately scopes it in the ecosystem by naming the follow-on siblings integrations_get, integrations_connect and integrations_oauth_configure. An agent can distinguish this from integrations_connections_list or integrations_test without opening a 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?

Explicit entry-point guidance ('Start here when connecting a third-party service') plus an ordered workflow: list, then read with integrations_get, then connect via integrations_connect or integrations_oauth_configure depending on auth type. The condition selecting each alternative is named.

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