get_integration_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the HTTP verb and path — no note on error behavior for missing IDs, no permission requirements, no scoping caveats that an openWorld read would warrant.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the verb, so there is no padding. But the first fragment duplicates the tool name verbatim and the second duplicates what the schema already shows, so neither sentence earns much beyond brevity.

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?

A three-parameter lookup with no output schema and no schema descriptions needs the description to explain the resource and the ID relationships; it does neither. Only the annotations carry real information, leaving the definition substantially under-specified.

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% for all three required integer parameters. The description only echoes them as path placeholders, giving no meaning beyond 'these are IDs in the URL' — it does not say what a value_id identifies versus an integration_id or how they relate.

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 pairs the verb 'Get' with the resource 'Integration Extract Value' and a REST route showing it fetches a single value by ID, which distinguishes it from list_integration_values. However, 'Integration Extract Value' merely restates the tool name, and nothing explains what an integration value actually is.

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 versus list_integration_values, get_integration, or get_integration_value_references. The agent must infer usage purely from the route shape and the sibling naming pattern.

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