List Integrations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior detail such as the meaning of `autoDisabled` (delivery stopped after repeated failures until reconnect) and the omission rule for program-type-inapplicable integrations. It does not discuss pagination or failure modes, but the added semantics are substantive.

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 core action and covered integrations, then dense supporting detail. Every sentence carries information (field meanings, omission rule, read-only, connection note, targeting), though it runs a little long for a simple list tool.

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-value explanation is not strictly required, and the description still sketches the key fields. Combined with full annotation and schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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% for the single `campaignId` parameter, so the schema already documents its type and default. The description only restates the fallback to `GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID`, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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) and resource (integrations) plus the exact set covered (Stripe, PayPal, Wise, Mailchimp, Slack, Zapier, Webhooks). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like growsurf_get_integration_connect_link or growsurf_integration_guide.

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?

Provides useful context (connection happens in the dashboard, not via the API; non-applicable integrations are omitted), which implies the tool's scope. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus the sibling connect-link or integration-guide tools, leaving selection to inference.

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