Get OmniStudio Integration Procedure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns configuration including elements and activation status, but it does not specify return format, error behavior, or API constraints. With strong annotation coverage, the added behavioral context is adequate but not extensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object. Every word adds value: it covers the resource, the contents of the retrieval, and the identifier. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 retrieval tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete high-level picture: what is retrieved, what is included, and how the target is identified. It does not describe the response structure or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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 provides no descriptions for procedureName or subType (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by stating the procedure is 'Identified by procedureName + subType', conveying that these two parameters together form a composite key. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it does not explain the meaning or allowed values of subType.

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 ('Retrieves') and identifies the exact resource ('configuration of an Integration Procedure') along with the included details (elements and activation status). It also names the unique identifier (procedureName + subType), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_update_integration_procedure or sf_activate_integration_procedure.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving configuration rather than modifying or creating, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-oriented purpose is unambiguous given the siblings focused on update/activate/create.

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