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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses what happens when the account is not connected (returns the connection page) and imposes an auth-handling rule about never requesting a token in chat.

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?

Front-loaded with the audience and subject, with the parenthetical explaining the downstream benefit and the closing sentence handling the failure path. Slightly overlong as one run-on sentence but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to enumerate return content (status, sub-account, last messages, or the connect page), which is what an agent needs here. It is complete for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the empty schema is 100% covered, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify about argument 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 names the specific resource (the agency's GoHighLevel sub-account connection to ShearQuery) and spells out exactly what it reports: connection status, which sub-account, and last messages sent. This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like ghl_send_sms and ghl_send_email, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 'For an AGENCY:' scoping and the instruction 'Never ask the agency to paste a GoHighLevel token into the chat' imply when this tool applies and how to handle the negative case, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given.

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