get_integration_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the payload includes (performance metrics, fatal_error_message), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown/invalid identifier or the volume of data returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the identifier forms and return highlights. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to note the notable return fields (performance metrics, fatal_error_message). It is nearly complete for a simple single-record read; only error/not-found behavior and the relationship to log-fetching tools are unstated.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents both accepted formats, so the description adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (a single Vulnerability Integration Run) and the acceptable identifier forms (VINTRUNxxxx or sys_id). Sibling differentiation is implicit via 'single' contrasted with list_integration_runs, but no sibling is named.

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 is only implied: an agent must already know it needs one run's detail and has an identifier. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or pointer to list_integration_runs/list_integration_logs as alternatives when the identifier is unknown or logs are wanted.

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