Anthony Hunt · SHAART Agency

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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds the domain context that these are contact options for a free diagnostic call, and does not contradict any 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?

One compact sentence conveys the full resource list and the optional-parameter behavior. There is no wasted text and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what data will be returned and how to control it. No output schema is needed because the return content is explicitly enumerated.

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 already documents the channel parameter with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by explaining that omitting the parameter returns all channels, enriching the schema.

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 what the tool returns—email, phone, WhatsApp, and a booking link—using a specific resource. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_pricing and list_posts by its focus on contact channels.

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 phrase 'Omit channel to get all' provides concrete usage guidance for the optional parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is clear enough that an agent knows when to call this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content context (USD, one-time vs monthly, what's included/excluded), but that is return-content detail rather than behavior beyond 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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, ending with the invocation rule. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single optional-param, read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, scope, and the omit-parameter behavior. With no output schema, the description helpfully sketches return contents. Minor gap: it doesn't state whether results are ordered or grouped, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single param already carries its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantic value by explaining the default behavior when plan_id is omitted ('get everything'), which the schema does not state.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('get_pricing' return contents) with a precise enumeration of what is returned: public plans and add-ons, USD prices, one-time and monthly, inclusions/exclusions, and the purchase page. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_services or get_contact_options, which cover different resources.

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?

States the key invocation rule explicitly: 'Omit plan_id to get everything.' This tells the agent how to get all data vs a single filtered item. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, but the sibling set covers unrelated domains so no routing conflict exists.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists only published posts and explains pagination via next_cursor, which the agent needs to know. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra operational details.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately gives the ordering and pagination details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers content scope, ordering, and pagination. It does not describe the response fields, but that is often inferred for a list operation. Combined with strong annotations, the information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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% for all three parameters (lang, limit, cursor), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination via next_cursor, which reinforces the cursor parameter's purpose, but it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. It is adequate but not enhanced.

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 it lists published blog posts about GoHighLevel, AI automation, and marketing, with newest first. This specific verb and resource set it apart from siblings like get_contact_options or get_pricing, which serve different purposes. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context (published posts, topics, ordering) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, the lack of explicit exclusion is acceptable, but it stops short of a 5 by not naming any alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context by stating what is returned for each service (description and page URL) and the default behavior when no tag is supplied. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or error behavior, but those gaps are modest for this simple read tool.

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 sentences with no wasted text. The return content is front-loaded and the filtering default follows immediately.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to call it correctly: what it returns, what each item includes, and how the optional tag behaves. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical context is missing.

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% and the tag parameter is fully described, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that omitting the tag returns all services, which is not explicitly stated in the schema.

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 that the tool returns services provided by the business, including each service's description and page URL. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like get_pricing and list_posts, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or use a literal verb like 'list'.

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 phrase 'Omit tag to get all' gives a useful usage instruction for the optional tag parameter, implying that supplying a tag filters results. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus get_pricing, list_posts, or get_contact_options, leaving broader usage context implied.

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