sigsci_list_corp_integrations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by listing integrations, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, required permissions, or response format. For a simple list, this is minimally adequate.

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 that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and the absence of annotations, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand the basic operation. However, it could be improved by noting that the result is a list of integration objects.

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 parameter 'corpName' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'integrations' scoped to 'a corporation'. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'sigsci_get_corp_integration' which retrieves a single integration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sigsci_get_corp_integration for a specific integration. The agent is left to infer usage without any comparative context.

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