Get Integration Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true-delegating the safety profile to structured metadata. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool returns flowing/quiet/error states, last event, 7-day counts, and error messages, and it discloses that API keys are never returned, only connected status. This materially enriches what an agent knows about the call before invoking it.

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 front-loaded with the primary result and scope, followed by clear usage triggers, then precise connection-interaction instructions. Although it is longer than average, every sentence adds actionable information for the agent, and the structure is well organized.

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?

Given zero parameters and rich annotations, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and call this tool correctly. It covers the result fields, common failure interpretation, and the exact format for offering a connection, leaving no critical gap in a tool with no output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameterschers, so there is no schema burden to describe. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description properly conveys that no filtering is needed because the tool returns all integrations for the current company/user context in one call.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'See every integration for this company and user in one call.' It clearly enumerates what the tool reports (connected, available but not connected, flowing status) and distinguishes its scope from the rest of the sibling tools by focusing entirely on integrations.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: when the user asks about connections or channels, when something needed is not connected, or when data looks stale or missing. It also explains when a dead feed is the real cause and even provides the exact action to offer a connection, which is far beyond minimum guidance.

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