Get an integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add the HTTP method and 'Body fields: none', but it omits error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when IDs 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 is two short sentences with no filler: a clear statement of the operation, the endpoint, the body expectation, and a documentation reference. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read-only GET, the description plus schema and annotations cover the call shape, safety, and parameters. The main gap is the lack of any description of the response shape, and since there is no output schema, a brief note about the returned integration would make it fully complete.

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 endpoint template clarifies that planId and integrationId are path parameters, and the description explicitly states there is no body. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of planId or integrationId beyond their names, and the schema already documents the query parameter 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get an integration') and gives the exact endpoint with planId and integrationId, making the singular retrieval operation unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmatters_get_integrations (list) and xmatters_get_integration_logs.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmatters_get_integrations or xmatters_get_integration_logs. The description is purely operational and does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a decision rule for selecting this tool.

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