edubase_get_integration

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main addition is the 'check' nuance—suggesting the tool can verify existence or status. It does not contradict the annotations. This adds modest context beyond the structured hints, justifying a slightly above-baseline score.

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 short words ('Get/check integration') with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient. Every element conveys purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter read operation.

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 simple read-only resource fetch with a single well-covered parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only missing context is clarification of what 'check' means behaviorally (e.g., existence vs. full retrieval) and the relationship to the plural sibling edubase_get_integrations. Those gaps are minor given the rich annotations and 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 schema description covers the only parameter (integration) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'integration' resource reference reinforces that the parameter identifies the integration to retrieve. It does not conflict with or add much beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage and a clear resource tie, 4 is fair.

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 'Get/check integration' names a verb ('Get/check') and a resource ('integration'), which is sufficient to convey the tool's purpose. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like edubase_get_integrations (plural list), though it could more explicitly clarify that it retrieves a single integration by identifier.

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 implies a read/check operation but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over edubase_get_integrations or edubase_get_integration_keys. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) give some context, but the description itself does not state conditions or alternatives.

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