list_integrations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the 400 error without company_id, the account-level limitation, auto-resolution of account_id, and pagination semantics, all of which go beyond the schema.

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 compact sections: one scoping sentence and a terse Args list. No filler, and the most decision-critical information (required company_id) is front and prominent.

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?

For a straightforward list operation with an output schema and no nested objects, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: required argument, failure mode, pagination behavior, and account resolution. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description must document parameters, and it covers all four. company_id gets a format ('COM...'), requiredness rationale, and failure mode; per_page and page get limits/indexing; account_id gets fallback behavior.

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: 'List integrations attached to one company,' with concrete examples (GMB, Google Ads, Facebook, Slack, Webhooks). The one-company scope and explicit exclusion of account-level listing clearly distinguish it from broader sibling list tools.

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?

Provides clear operational context: the endpoint is company-scoped, account-level listing is not supported, and company_id is mandatory. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool for account-level needs, but the scope guidance is strong enough to prevent misuse.

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