get_integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating this is a listing operation and that the output is a short summary per integration, which is meaningful since there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences in one line, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It conveys purpose, examples, and return shape efficiently 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 read-only list tool with three fully documented optional parameters, the description provides adequate context: what it lists, example type values, and the summary nature of results. It could be slightly more complete by naming the fields in the summary or explicitly directing agents to get_integration for full details, but 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 100%, so limit, name_filter, and type_filter are already documented. The description only adds examples of integration types (Slack, PagerDuty, etc.), which gives context for type_filter but does not materially expand param semantics beyond schema.

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 the action ('List LogicMonitor integrations') and the resource, with concrete examples of integration types. The plural 'List' and 'short summary per integration' distinguish it from the sibling get_integration, which is implied to return one detailed integration.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'List' and 'short summary per integration': this is for browsing many integrations at a summary level, not for retrieving a single full integration. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_integration or the create/update/delete siblings, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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