list_integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds useful return fields (name, id, source, type), but does not discuss pagination behavior, limits beyond the schema, or any external-feed caveats relevant to openWorldHint.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the catalog scope first, then examples, then return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the key missing context: the table, examples, and returned fields. The parameter schema is fully documented, and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 both limit and query are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the USEM/VR integration catalog (sn_sec_int_integration)' and adds concrete examples like NVD, Qualys, Tenable, and Red Hat. It distinguishes this from configured integration implementations by calling it a catalog of available feeds, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is not.

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 implies usage by framing the tool as a catalog of available security data feeds, but it does not state when to prefer it over list_integration_implementations, list_integration_runs, or other integration-related siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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