get_integration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already conveyed. The description adds significant behavioral context: it details return fields, configuration specifics per integration type, and troubleshooting tips. No contradictions. A slight deduction for not mentioning potential side effects or limits, but overall very informative.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and clear headings. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with repeated troubleshooting advice that could be condensed. Overall, it earns its length by being informative.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining return fields, configuration details, troubleshooting, and workflow. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly, including links to sibling tools. Highly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what data is returned for various integration types (Slack, PagerDuty, etc.) which helps the agent understand how to use the integrationId parameter effectively. However, it does not explicitly elaborate on the 'fields' parameter beyond what is in the schema.

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 it gets detailed information about a specific integration by ID in LogicMonitor. It distinguishes from siblings like list_integrations by explicitly stating a workflow: use list_integrations to find the ID, then this tool. The purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 description provides a dedicated 'When to use' section listing concrete scenarios (troubleshoot, review config, check API keys, etc.). It also explains the workflow and mentions related tools (list_integrations, test_integration, update_integration) so the agent knows when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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