list_integration_parameters

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 genuinely new behavior: secret-like values are masked and encrypted password_value columns are never returned, which is critical for an agent reasoning about output contents.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then explains both scopes and the masking behavior in a compact, well-ordered way. Dense but every clause carries information; no padding.

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 full schema coverage and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining needed context: the two scope modes, their backing tables, and the masking guarantee. No output schema exists, yet return contents are adequately conveyed.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each scope actually returns (catalog columns vs configured values) and that integration/implementation filtering is optional, adding real semantic value.

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 USEM/VR integration parameters') and immediately disambiguates the two operational modes by naming the underlying tables (sn_sec_int_config vs sn_sec_int_impl_config). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_integration_implementations or list_integrations without opening the schema.

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 maps scope='definition' to the catalog and scope='instance' to configured values, giving strong context for choosing behavior. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives (e.g. list_integration_implementations) or state when to prefer them, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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