Get an integration connection

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavior: the response includes auth parameters, and secret auth parameters are obfuscated. It also discloses the workspace/credential scoping rule, which is not derivable from annotations.

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 no filler; the scope (which connection, which workspace) leads, and the obfuscation caveat follows. Both sentences carry information an agent needs.

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-shape detail is unnecessary, and readOnlyHint covers safety. The description handles scoping and the secret-obfuscation caveat well; only error/not-found behavior for a bad connection_id is left unstated.

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 only 33% (just X-Orchestra-Account-Id), so the description is expected to compensate for 'integration' and 'connection_id' and does not. It touches account/workspace resolution only tangentially via 'the workspace the credential resolves to', leaving the two required parameters undocumented beyond their names.

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 ('Fetch') plus resource ('a single integration connection') and scopes it to the credential's workspace. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with list_integration_connections, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 says what it does but never says when to reach for it over list_integration_connections (e.g., when you already hold a connection_id) or how to obtain a valid connection_id. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance.

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