Get an integration

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful context about the returned payload: auth and job schemas are included, and it explains how to interpret auth_schema entries (name = connection field, format: password = secret). It doesn't mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the return-shape interpretation is real added value.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the payload-interpretation tip following immediately. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still supplies helpful interpretation of auth_schema fields. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 the single enum parameter, but the enum values are self-explanatory identifiers. The description only says 'by its identifier' without adding format, casing, or matching rules, so it adds little beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single integration by its identifier') and uses 'single' to implicitly separate it from the listing siblings. It does not name a specific sibling to differentiate from, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving one integration's details rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_integration_connection or list_integration_connections.

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