list_integration_values

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the GET endpoint and that results are tied to an integration extractor, but it does not add meaningful details such as pagination, permissions, or response behavior.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and includes the endpoint without unnecessary filler. Every element is directly relevant to identifying the 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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description gives enough to locate the endpoint, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema and no return-value or pagination context, it remains only minimally complete for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 for undocumented project_id and integration_id. It only repeats both parameter names in the URL path; it does not explain what values are valid beyond the schema's integer/minimum constraints or clarify how integration_id relates to the extractor.

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 states a specific action and resource: retrieving Integration Extracted Values linked to an integration extractor. It also gives the exact endpoint, making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with the singular get_integration_value or broader list_integrations sibling.

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?

It implies usage by saying values are linked to an integration extractor and by naming project_id and integration_id, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative-tool comparison against get_integration_value and list_integrations.

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