list_integrations_by_key

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

The description reveals the HTTP method (GET) indicating a read operation, but no annotations exist. It does not discuss side effects, rate limits, pagination, or output structure. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single sentence plus a list of allowed keys. It is relatively concise, though the full enumeration of keys could be omitted since it appears in the schema. Front-loads the purpose effectively.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides a clear purpose and parameter context. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and input, though output details are omitted.

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?

The input schema covers the parameter with full description (including valid values). The description repeats this list, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 due to high schema 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 clearly states it lists integrations by key name, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling 'list_integrations' by including the key parameter, and also lists the endpoint and possible key values, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when filtering by key, but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_integrations' or 'get_integration_by_key'. No exclusion criteria or context is provided.

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