list_risk_scoring_integrations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only enumeration, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose whether the result is paginated, account-scoped beyond the schema hint, or what fields are returned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and resource.

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 list operation with one clearly schema-documented parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit return-format or pagination details, but the low complexity and the 'list' verb make the tool usable without extensive elaboration.

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 already describes account_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, such as its role in scoping the integration list.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Zero Trust risk scoring integrations'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_risk_scoring_integration by implying enumeration of all integrations rather than retrieval of one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_risk_scoring_integration or list_risk_scoring_behaviors. The description does not state conditions like 'use this to fetch all integrations' or 'use get_risk_scoring_integration for a single integration.'

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