edubase_get_integrations

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond 'owned and managed' scope. It does not disclose pagination defaults or that the search parameter is not used in search mode, which is actually mentioned in the schema rather than the description. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It earns its place and has no filler, but it is so minimal that it misses an opportunity to mention pagination or how the result set is scoped relative to the account/context. Still appropriate overall for a simple list tool.

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 has an output schema, read-only annotations, and schema descriptions for all three optional parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a straightforward paginated list operation. It does not explicitly distinguish the return shape or scope from sibling integration endpoints, and the 'owned and managed' phrase is the only contextual qualifier, leaving some ambiguity about what set of integrations will be returned.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented with descriptions for page, limit, and search. The description itself contributes the scope context ('owned and managed') and the schema adds operational details like 'not used in search mode!' and default values. This is slightly above baseline because the schema descriptions are informative and the tool description reinforces the meaningful filter semantics.

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 'List owned and managed integrations' uses a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from mutation tools like edubase_post_integration or edubase_delete_integration. While the phrase 'owned and managed' adds useful scoping, the description is concise but not fully differentiated from other list/get tools such as edubase_get_integration or edubase_get_integration_keys because it doesn't explain how 'integrations' here relates to those siblings.

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-only listing operation appropriate when you need all integrations for the current context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over edubase_get_integration, edubase_get_integration_keys, or the integration permission/tag tool variants. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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