list_integrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that company_id is required and account_id auto-resolves, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or the exact behavior when parameters are invalid.

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 uses a clear docstring format with Args section, is front-loaded with purpose, and contains minimal redundancy (only the '**Required**' is slightly redundant). It is concise given the number of parameters.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the required parameter and pagination, but lacks explanation of the account_id resolution logic and potential error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains company_id format, per_page max (250), page indexing (1-indexed), and account_id auto-resolution, going 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists integrations for a company, listing specific examples (GMB, Google Ads, etc.), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_integration (singular) and list_companies (different resource).

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 emphasizes that company_id is required and account_id auto-resolves, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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