list_integration_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for disclosing behavior. It only says 'lists integration tables' and gives no information about output format, pagination, filtering, or potential side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a list operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, lacking essential details about the payload and the nature of integration tables, making it minimally useful.

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?

The tool has a generic optional payload parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced. The description does not explain what 'integration tables' are, what the payload accepts, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a tool with this level of ambiguity.

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 schema has one parameter 'payload' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what the payload should contain or how it affects the listing. The tool description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (integration tables) within a database. It is specific enough to indicate the tool's core function, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_tables or describe_integration_tables, which could cause confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tables or describe_integration_tables. The description only states what it does, without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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