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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'without mutating state' is largely a restatement. The phrase 'known sub-account locations' adds a small amount of information about what the call surfaces, but nothing is said about what happens when the context enum is omitted versus supplied.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded and a compact, immediately usable example. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 must convey the shape of the response, and it only loosely does so ('configured contexts and known sub-account locations'). It is adequate for a single optional-parameter read tool, but leaves ambiguity about the relationship to the sibling locations tool and about what an omitted context returns.

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 optional enum parameter is documented in the schema. The description still adds value by showing a concrete populated example, which makes clear the context value is meant to be one of the enum identifiers rather than free text.

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+resource ('List configured HighLevel agency account contexts and known sub-account locations'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it overlaps with the sibling ghl_agency_locations by also claiming to return locations without explaining how the two differ.

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 example call ghl_agency_contexts({"context":"moosh-growth"}) implies how to use it and shows that inspection can be scoped, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as ghl_agency_locations or ghl_agency_connection_health.

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