integration_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral traits beyond these: it explicitly states 'makes no network call' (a behavior not conveyed by the annotations) and details what the readout includes (live/stub, credentials, gate). It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects (none) and output nature.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and enumerates the readout components. The second sentence adds a critical behavioral trait (no network call) and a usage directive. Every clause earns its place; it is compact without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers most essentials: what it reports, that it is offline, and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of parameter explanation, but the parameters are generic enough that an agent might infer their roles. The description does not describe pagination or detailed response format, but that is not necessary for such a lightweight readout.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the meaning of the two parameters, app_id and name. However, it does not mention them at all. It says 'for one integration' but does not map that to the parameters or clarify whether name refers to the integration name or something else. An agent is left to guess the distinction between app_id and name, which is a significant gap given the total absence of schema-level guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('readout') and resource ('one integration'), then enumerates exactly what it reports: live or stub, credential presence, and the three-key egress gate. It also explicitly notes it makes no network call, which further defines the tool's role. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like integration_list or integration_call without needing to consult their schemas.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'ask this before asking for a lease,' which tells the agent when to invoke it. It also implies this is a cheap, offline check by stating 'makes no network call.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions. This is still clear context for one key scenario.

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