list_integration_runs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: results are ordered newest first. It does not disclose result volume expectations or what 'with detail' means in terms of returned fields, but that gap is modest given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and table, then filters, then ordering, then the alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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 7-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, default ordering, and the sibling alternative. It leaves the meaning of 'with detail' and interaction between filters implicit, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description's examples ("NVD", "success"/"failed", day window) largely restate schema text. It adds no new syntax or semantics such as how days interacts with state/substate or how the raw query parameter composes.

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 plus the underlying table (sn_vul_integration_run), and names the exact facets it can filter on. It also declares result ordering (newest first), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling integration tools 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_integration_health for a quick health rollup, giving a clear alternative with the condition that selects it. It does not clarify the boundary with get_integration_run (single run detail) or list_integration_logs, which a sibling-aware agent would also want to resolve.

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