get_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no auth requirements, no error behavior for a missing integration, no indication of what the response contains.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence largely restates the schema's required parameters as a path template rather than adding new information. Not verbose, just low-value per sentence.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unstated: what fields come back, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, and how it differs from adjacent read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. The URL template only reuses the parameter names project_id and integration_id, giving no further meaning (format of IDs, scope rules, or whether the integration must belong to that project).

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?

"Get Integration" is essentially the tool name restated as a sentence. The REST path fragment adds only that the resource is project-scoped, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings such as get_integration_value, get_integration_references, or list_integrations.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other integration getters/listers. The only implicit guidance is that it fetches one integration by ID under a project, which an agent must infer from the URL template.

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