Get Integration

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations, the safety profile is already known. The description adds value by stating that the return is the full Integration object and highlights HTTP configuration details for HTTP-type integrations, which informs the caller about possible response complexity. This goes beyond the bare annotation and enriches behavioral expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the HTTP method and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, every clause adds meaningful information about scope and return content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 GET-by-ID tool with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers the primary context: what is retrieved and what is returned. It does not explicitly address error behavior or when to prefer list_integrations, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, this is not a significant gap. It falls just short of fully complete because it omits any mention of not-found responses or relationship to sibling tools.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a clear description. The description only repeats 'by its ID' without adding extra syntax, format, or edge-case context. Per calibration, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate unless the description offers supplementary meaning, which it does not.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Retrieve a single integration by its ID.' It specifies the action (GET) and distinguishes from siblings like list_integrations or create_integration by focusing on a single record retrieval. It also adds specific return details (full Integration object with HTTP configuration), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need a specific integration by ID. It does not explicitly mention synonyms like 'use list_integrations to see all' but the ID-based lookup is unambiguous. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, but the simple nature of the operation makes the usage context clear.

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