Get integration packages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety; the description adds the meaningful behavioral limitation that $filter and $select are unsupported. However, it does not mention response format, error behavior, or ordering/pagination behavior beyond the raw parameter names, so it offers only moderate value beyond the annotation.

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 brief and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a concise behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place without wasted wording.

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 read-only list endpoint this is acceptable, but there are gaps: parameter semantics are unexplainedley and the sibling search_integration_packages is not explicitly recommended for filtered queries. The description covers the essential purpose and a key limitation, but not the full calling context.

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% and the description does not compensate for this. Although the parameter names 'top', 'skip', and 'orderby' are somewhat self-explanatory, the schema only provides string types with no format details, and the description does not explain how to use them or what values are acceptable.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('all integration packages'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_integration_packages, but the 'all' phrasing provides some distinction.

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?

The note that $filter and $select are not supported implies that this tool is only appropriate for unfiltered retrieval)Skip if filtering is needed, but it never names the alternative or gives explicit when-to-use guidance. The context is present but only implicitly.

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