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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that only integrations 'configuradas no tenant' are listed, which is behaviorally relevant. However, it does not describe output granularity, pagination, or whether sensitive configuration details are included; with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of the tool name beyond the natural subject, and it earns its place by adding tenant scope.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. The main missing element is explicit guidance on when to choose this generic list versus the numerous integration-specific list siblings. Still, the phrasing 'integracoes configuradas no tenant' implies a broad listing, so the gap is minor.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 ('Lista'), a clear resource ('integracoes configuradas'), and a scope ('no tenant'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is easy to distinguish from the many integration-specific siblings by its generic 'all configured integrations' scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling or emphasize that it covers all integration types, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many integration-specific list tools, such as integrations_discord_channels_list, integrations_live_alerts_list, or integrations_whatsapp_groups_list. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or the appropriate context for the generic list versus a narrower one. This is a clear gap given the large sibling set.

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