get_risk_scoring_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'get' verb conveys that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the key safety-relevant trait. However, nothing is disclosed about what 'details' includes, error behavior when the integration does not exist, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single clean sentence with no wasted words and the core operation front-loaded. It is appropriately terse for a simple retrieval tool, though it is minimal enough that it adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 low-complexity get-by-id tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is near-sufficient. The notable gaps are the lack of any mention of the related list_risk_scoring_integrations sibling, and the absence of an output schema means the agent gets no hint of what the returned 'details' contain.

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 100%, so per the baseline rule the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's own descriptions ('The account ID', 'The integration ID') are somewhat tautological, but the description is not required to compensate given the high coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('get details of') and resource ('a risk scoring integration'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling list_risk_scoring_integrations; the agent must rely on the conventional get-vs-list naming pattern to tell them apart.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list_risk_scoring_integrations (for enumerating integrations) and list_risk_scoring_behaviors exist, but the description names none of them and gives no exclusion criteria. Usage context is only implicit in the tool's name, not in the description.

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