integration_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool makes no network call, is offline, and provides a current-state readiness check, including what it returns (live/stub, credential presence, egress gate). It does not explicitly mention side effects, but 'readout' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every word contributes. It is concise and well-structured without redundancy.

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 2-param status check with no output schema, the description covers the main facets: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks error-condition details, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references 'one integration' and 'this app' to map to name and app_id, but does not define parameter formats, acceptable values, or relationships. It provides a hint but not enough for precise parameter understanding.

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 is an offline readiness readout for one integration, listing specific data points (live/stub, credential presence, egress gate). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Makes no network call' and positioning it as a pre-lease check, which differentiates it from integration_call.

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 gives clear usage context: ask this before asking for a lease, and no network call is involved. It implies a workflow without naming specific alternatives, but it is enough to guide the agent on when to invoke it.

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