growsurf_list_integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by defining the state fields (connected, enabled, autoDisabled, connectUrl) and disclosing that autoDisabled means delivery stops until reconnection. Consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 with the purpose and readable, but slightly verbose — the field definitions and omission rule, while valuable, could be tightened. Every sentence earns its place, so the length is justified rather than padded.

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?

Complete for a filtered-list tool: an output schema exists so return values are covered there, and the description explains the state semantics, the omission behavior, the read-only constraint, the alternative tool, and the targeting rule. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single campaignId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default and the create_campaign hint. The description adds only a marginal targeting note ('Targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID') that mostly restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) + resource (every integration for a program) + scope, and enumerates concrete examples (Stripe, PayPal, Mailchimp, Slack, Zapier, Webhooks). The read-only caveat and connect-link routing differentiate it from siblings like growsurf_get_integration_connect_link and growsurf_integration_guide, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('check whether an integration is connected before you act on it'), explains that inapplicable integrations are omitted, and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('call growsurf_get_integration_connect_link for the link to hand the user'). Nothing is left to inference.

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