get_integration_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it fetches a client. Nothing about auth/permissions, error behavior when the client is absent, connectivity requirements, or rate limits is disclosed. The read nature is implied but not enriched.

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?

Front-loaded purpose is good and the entry is short, but the docstring-style Args block spends lines restating parameter names and includes a phantom parameter, so not every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. For a simple get-and-one tool this is largely adequate, but the phantom 'settings' parameter creates a real mismatch with the schema and lowers completeness.

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 only 33%, and the description's Args block merely restates site_id/client_id ('Site identifier', 'Client UUID') while introducing a 'settings: Application settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema. Meanwhile the 'controller' parameter — the only one whose defaulting behavior genuinely needs explanation — is left to the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single connected client') and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the list_integration_clients sibling. It is clear but never names the alternative or otherwise differentiates explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_integration_clients or the other get_integration_* siblings. No prerequisites or context for selecting a single-client fetch are stated.

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