get_integration_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST path, and says nothing about what the references represent, whether results can be empty, or how pagination/ordering works for a collection-returning read.

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?

Two very short sentences with no padding, so it is not verbose. However, one of them is pure name repetition and the other is a raw endpoint string, so the brevity reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for telling the agent what comes back — a list of referencing resources — and it does not. Combined with undocumented parameters, an agent cannot predict the response shape or handle empty results.

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 path template at least reveals that integration_id is scoped under project_id, but there is no guidance on ID validity, ownership, or error behavior for either required integer.

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 first sentence restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Get Integration Refs'), adding no verb/resource nuance beyond what the identifier already conveys. The only added information is the HTTP route, which hints at scope but never explains what a 'reference' is or how it differs from get_integration_value_references or get_integration_matcher_references.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_integration or get_integration_value_references, and no prerequisite context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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