list_integrations

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by detailing parameter constraints (e.g., error on missing company_id, max page size, pagination indexing, auto-resolution of account_id). It does not cover rate limits or side effects, but the behavior is adequately disclosed for a read operation.

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 concise, using a brief introductory sentence followed by a clear list of parameters. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and all parameters adequately. It could mention pagination behavior more explicitly, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, but the description provides meaningful semantics for all four parameters: company_id's requirement and format, per_page max, page indexing, and account_id auto-resolution. This goes beyond the bare 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 lists integrations attached to one company, with examples. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_integration or list_webhooks.

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 gives usage context by noting that company_id is required and account-level listing is not supported, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative tools.

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