List Integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing that results are cursor-based paginated and scoped to the account, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and resource, then adds key details about filtering and pagination. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or verbosity.

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?

The combination of description and schema is fairly complete: it explains the return type (Integration objects), pagination mechanism (cursor-based), and account scope. With no output schema, the description's mention of the return type is helpful. It could have noted that only 'http' can be filtered, but the schema covers that. Minor gaps remain around fully explaining pagination navigation, but overall it's solid.

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%, with detailed descriptions for type, limit, cursor, and order_by. The description's phrase 'matching the given parameters' is generic and adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (List), resource (integrations), and scope (for the account), and mentions the pagination behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gorgias_get_integration (single fetch) and create/update/delete operations by specifying it returns a paginated list.

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 implies this tool is used to list integrations with optional filters and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over gorgias_get_integration or other integration-related tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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