list_integration_implementations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: it defines the record type as the operational unit that carries the active flag, default flag and validation status, which tells the agent what state it will see in results.

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 tight sentences: entity plus table first, then the use case. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most actionable guidance comes last where it is easy to scan.

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 read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers entity identity and purpose adequately. The only gap is the unstated relationship to the sibling integration tools (definitions vs. runs vs. parameters).

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, query, active and display_value are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning (e.g., how 'active' interacts with the default flag), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List configured integration implementations/instances') and names the underlying table (sn_sec_int_impl), so an agent knows exactly what entity is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby list_integrations sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to see which feeds are actually enabled' gives one concrete motivating scenario, which is real guidance. However, it never names the alternative siblings (list_integrations, list_integration_runs, set_integration_active), so the agent must infer when to pick this tool over them.

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